Guest Mark Valenti Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 There are no clear photos of Marilyn Sitzman on the pedestal wearing high heels, that you assume she had on, there are no clear photos of her on the pedestal, period...and neither are there in the Trask's book, that I have come upon.....that you say are there...??.and seeing that I do not think you have ever worn high heels, you would not know anything about running up and down knolls and or grassy hills, or on grass, for that matter, wearing such ,so do not try to tell a woman, who did wear them for many years, about them...... you are assuming again......and in error..I did not say there were No women ,Not wearing high heels, on the knoll area, we all wore them back then..we wrecked our feet, but we wore them.....and also we wore flats... I said no woman with high heels on, would run up or down a grassy knoll hill with such on their feet, as the heels would stick into the grass, especially running down...and that is something you would not know about......if you are going to imply what I said and or did not say, make sure you are correct and not simply inserting your suppositions..again. .No one knows if she wore such on the pedestal, positively, as no clear photo exists that she is or did......Did it ever occur to you or any man, within the research world, that she especially in a straight skirt, climbing up on a pedestal ,would have slipped them off....IF she was wearing them..which is questionable.......But.... there is a BIG IF about it, as there is seen in Trasks, which you refer to, and others do own... a photo of her at the corner of Houston and Main, it appears that the shoe on her left foot, which is on the sidewalk, as she takes a step with her right, does Not have a High Heel...it appears to be what we called a flat....so from this crop of Trask's photo, lightened, it appears that she was wearing flats......it is not a positive as yet, but that is the way it appears to me right now....I will attach and please, all, have a look at her left foot.... B.. In this still of Sitzman, she looks like she's either standing on her tiptoes or is wearing high heels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore 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 **************************** If Jack could post his own photos, he certainly would be....enough of that crap...... Here's your photo Jack.......... B.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 25, 2007 Author 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. That's your interpretation Bill, Let's try this for ours. Of which I agree with Jack 99%. The only difference between what Jack has summized and me is: I see him holding something black in his left hand and not her arm. Her left arm extends below his and grabs his waist. Thanks Jack Edited January 25, 2007 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 25, 2007 Author Share Posted January 25, 2007 Mark, I got up on the pedestal with my B/H 414 and shot about 5 rolls of film. At no point did I ever move my feet. The tendency is to set your feet in a comfortable position, then pivot from the waist which allows you to cover the top of Elm St. to the underpass. Chris, there is an important thing you are missing because you do not think in terms of the 'angle of perspective'. From the view that someone like Betzner had - Zapruder will appear side by side with Sitzman. Bronson and Nix have a different angle of view to the pedestal, so Zapruder will be more between Sitzman and the Bronson or Nix cameras. So many times I have witnessed these types of mistakes made because you guys never think about the angle at which any particular camera is filming from. Look at the photo posted in response #63 which shows Sitzman on the pedestal. Look towards the corner of Elm and Houston in that photo - can you not see how Zapruder and Sitzman would look to be standing side by side from that angle. Now consider the angle at which Zapruder would have rotated his body to so to see Nix - cannot you not see how from that LOS that Sitzman would appear to be more behind Zapruder than beside him. This is not rocket science, but thin gs that we all should have learned in a grade school art class when discussing "perspective". Also, if you watch a good copy of the Nix film ... you can see Zapruder twisting his body just as you did. in fact, if you had given any thought to have done it - you would have had someone take a photo of you on the pedestal with a Sitzman stand-in and at the same time had two photos of you taken - one from the Betzner location and the other from the Nix location and then compared that to the images being discussed here. peoples inability to carry out an in-depth test study when given the chance does not equate alteration. Bill Here's another comparison between Z/Sitz by Jack White, from the Betzner photo. Was Zapruder wearing a tie? I think it was a bow tie and white shirt. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 That's your interpretation Bill,Let's try this for ours. Of which I agree with Jack 99%. The only difference between what Jack has summized and me is: I see him holding something black in his left hand and not her arm. Her left arm extends below his and grabs his waist. Thanks Jack First Jack has been claiming that no one is on the pedestal and now you (Chris) have Sitzman getting manhandled by a third person. The research community has now been taken to a new low - congratulations! Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 There are no clear photos of Marilyn Sitzman on the pedestal wearing high heels, that you assume she had on, there are no clear photos of her on the pedestal, period...and neither are there in the Trask's book, that I have come upon.....that you say are there...??.and seeing that I do not think you have ever worn high heels, you would not know anything about running up and down knolls and or grassy hills, or on grass, for that matter, wearing such ,so do not try to tell a woman, who did wear them for many years, about them...... you are assuming again......and in error..I did not say there were No women ,Not wearing high heels, on the knoll area, we all wore them back then..we wrecked our feet, but we wore them.....and also we wore flats... I said no woman with high heels on, would run up or down a grassy knoll hill with such on their feet, as the heels would stick into the grass, especially running down...and that is something you would not know about......if you are going to imply what I said and or did not say, make sure you are correct and not simply inserting your suppositions..again. .No one knows if she wore such on the pedestal, positively, as no clear photo exists that she is or did......Did it ever occur to you or any man, within the research world, that she especially in a straight skirt, climbing up on a pedestal ,would have slipped them off....IF she was wearing them..which is questionable.......But.... there is a BIG IF about it, as there is seen in Trasks, which you refer to, and others do own... a photo of her at the corner of Houston and Main, it appears that the shoe on her left foot, which is on the sidewalk, as she takes a step with her right, does Not have a High Heel...it appears to be what we called a flat....so from this crop of Trask's photo, lightened, it appears that she was wearing flats......it is not a positive as yet, but that is the way it appears to me right now....I will attach and please, all, have a look at her left foot.... B.. In this still of Sitzman, she looks like she's either standing on her tiptoes or is wearing high heels. Mark - you are wasting your time with people like Bernice. She should have seen the elevated arches of Sitzman in the Betzner photo, but couldn't. She then posted a poor resolution image of Sitzman near the corner of the TSBD in such a way that she washed out a good amount of detail showing Sitzman in her high heels. Yes - Jack has taught her well! When I get time I will search the good scan that I believe that Robin once posted of the same picture from Trask book "Pictures of the Pain". Then she can claim the photos were altered to hide Sitzman's flats. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 (edited) Thanks to Bernice and Chris for posting my studies. This crappy new forum software discriminates against Macintosh users. Jack Edited January 25, 2007 by Jack White 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 Hi Eugene, Sorry it took so long to get back to this. Here is the process that I used: 1. Exported the frame using Quicktime Pro with No Compression applied. 2. Used PhotoRetouch Pro to upsize it about 1000%, using CDC 4X technology. CDC 4x Technology description: Alongside the conventional interpolation algorithms, bi-cubic, bi-linear and nearest neighbor, PhotoRetouch Pro offers an additional method, called CDC 4x. The "4x" indicates that it is designed for factor 4 enlargements (i.e. 200% horizontally and 200% vertically). CDC 4x is an enlargement technology, similar to a slide in a slide projector: the farther the projector is placed from the screen, the larger the image will be. Yet, it remains the same image. Images enlarged with CDC 4x retain the original pixels, thus they retain the same look and feel as the original, which is simply enlarged. This enlargement technique does not generate noise and does not result in jagged edges. Images are enlarged but so are defects. Two consecutive CDC 4x enlargements generally yield excellent results if the original image quality is high. 3. Used PhotoRetouchPro's Process tool "Backlight Enhancer" with a "Strength" of about 15 and "Luminosity" around 12. 4.Take into photoshop and used Levels 5.In Levels, take the midtone slider arrow and move to the left til it touches the shadow slider arrow. (Picture will look white) hit O.K. 6.Back to Levels, take shadow slider and move it right to start creating your contrast. That's it. The numbers may vary slightly as I did this about a year ago, but pretty sure the process is the same. Attached is the Quicktime version saved as a PNG , a screenshot PNG, and one that's a result of the process I just described. I think it would be better if I just email you the Quicktime original, because when it's exported, it adds the PICT extension and the forum does not allow this type of attachment. If it gives you problems let me know , and I will just email to you. hope this helps, and any more questions please feel free to ask. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 (edited) There are no clear photos of Marilyn Sitzman on the pedestal wearing high heels, that you assume she had on, there are no clear photos of her on the pedestal, period...and neither are there in the Trask's book, that I have come upon.....that you say are there...??.and seeing that I do not think you have ever worn high heels, you would not know anything about running up and down knolls and or grassy hills, or on grass, for that matter, wearing such ,so do not try to tell a woman, who did wear them for many years, about them...... you are assuming again......and in error..I did not say there were No women ,Not wearing high heels, on the knoll area, we all wore them back then..we wrecked our feet, but we wore them.....and also we wore flats... I said no woman with high heels on, would run up or down a grassy knoll hill with such on their feet, as the heels would stick into the grass, especially running down...and that is something you would not know about......if you are going to imply what I said and or did not say, make sure you are correct and not simply inserting your suppositions..again. .No one knows if she wore such on the pedestal, positively, as no clear photo exists that she is or did......Did it ever occur to you or any man, within the research world, that she especially in a straight skirt, climbing up on a pedestal ,would have slipped them off....IF she was wearing them..which is questionable.......But.... there is a BIG IF about it, as there is seen in Trasks, which you refer to, and others do own... a photo of her at the corner of Houston and Main, it appears that the shoe on her left foot, which is on the sidewalk, as she takes a step with her right, does Not have a High Heel...it appears to be what we called a flat....so from this crop of Trask's photo, lightened, it appears that she was wearing flats......it is not a positive as yet, but that is the way it appears to me right now....I will attach and please, all, have a look at her left foot.... B.. In this still of Sitzman, she looks like she's either standing on her tiptoes or is wearing high heels. Mark - you are wasting your time with people like Bernice. She should have seen the elevated arches of Sitzman in the Betzner photo, but couldn't. She then posted a poor resolution image of Sitzman near the corner of the TSBD in such a way that she washed out a good amount of detail showing Sitzman in her high heels. Yes - Jack has taught her well! When I get time I will search the good scan that I believe that Robin once posted of the same picture from Trask book "Pictures of the Pain". Then she can claim the photos were altered to hide Sitzman's flats. Bill ___________ Mark : Thanks for the photo......but I do not see any shoes, and certainly not clearly, imo...B ****************** Bill: Not excusing as usual your ill-mannered remarks, which no, BTW, Jack has not taught me, whenever would he have the time is beyond me..... But BTW that is from Robin's post, which I believe he may have gotten from a member that posted such on another forum, perhaps.. Or that he scanned himself, I am not sure, as he never did say, but no matter, here are both. I do not claim photos are as you say, I do say some are very indistinguishable, and blurry, cloudy and are not what the photographer recalls such as Altgens, and some films having been cut as Nix stated, and there are many questions surrounding them and the films.... and there is a possibility that some have..been manipulated. AS I Stated all I did was lighten it up a little more, there you go again.....twisiting peoples words, which as I have mentioned before you are simply not very good at doing so......But great at screaming about such when someone does not quote you properly.....you cannot have it both ways Bull.. 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 Edited January 25, 2007 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 That's your interpretation Bill,Let's try this for ours. Of which I agree with Jack 99%. The only difference between what Jack has summized and me is: I see him holding something black in his left hand and not her arm. Her left arm extends below his and grabs his waist. Thanks Jack First Jack has been claiming that no one is on the pedestal and now you (Chris) have Sitzman getting manhandled by a third person. The research community has now been taken to a new low - congratulations! Bill What a dolt! One frame is totally black, with nobody on the pedestal. BLACKED OUT, NADA, NOTHING, NOBODY. Another frame shows a man and a woman doing the cha-cha-cha. TWO PEOPLE NOT ZAPPY AND SITZY. It is called photo alteration, dummy. Miller cannot seem to comprehend. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 (edited) Thanks to Bernice and Chris for posting my studies. This crappy newforum software discriminates against Macintosh users. Jack Your welcome Jack, and why ? as many have mentioned, something was fixed, when not broken is beyond me, and as has been also mentioned, by others it is getting slower and more difficut to post with and without attachments.. at times. B.. Edited January 25, 2007 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 (edited) Here is the Willis 15, from the corner of Elm and Houston Sts..showing Marilyn at the far left.....note her Left foot, and shoe not in shadows.... a flat... B Edited January 26, 2007 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Colorized crop from Alan Healy's Betzner 3 Scan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 2007 Thanks to Bernice and Chris for posting my studies. This crappy newforum software discriminates against Macintosh users. Jack Most of us who have seen your studies consider your not being able to post more ridiculous claims as an act of God. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 26, 2007 Share Posted January 26, 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! Edited January 26, 2007 by Bill Miller 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