Jump to content
The Education Forum

Party's Over Continued


Recommended Posts

This animation shows the alteration of evidence in the assassination of

John F. Kennedy.

As I had described in my previous topic, there were doubles of Zapruder/Sitzman.

They appear in Bell, Betzner, Bronson and in Wiegman as I have previously pointed out.

The Bell movie gave the alterationists troubles.

I'm pretty sure Bell filmed the 3 people behind the wall, on the steps to the pergola, as well as up on the pedestal at the same time.

This was a big problem.

What did they do to the Bell movie.

They got rid of the people on the pedestal and blurred the 3 people on the stairs.

Don't believe it, watch Bell and notice when the camera jiggling/blurring occcurs.

It happens gradually leading into Z/Sitz walking away from the wall.

If you take a look at the animation, they didn't get the wall lined up and they darkened up the background.

More importantly, the pergola light opening in Bell, is not a light opening at all.

It is a cutout window used to register pieces of film.

Besides being nowhere near the Moorman light openings, watch as the figures on the pedestal fade out and the cutout fades in.

What does the cutout encompass from the Moorman picture.

Notice the notch in the cutout, fits nicely over the Moorman figure.

Old style graphic arts, its what I've done for along time.

cheers

chris

P.S.

Do all the rescaling, resizing, reblurring, re re re you want.

It's not going to help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This animation shows the alteration of evidence in the assassination of

John F. Kennedy.

As I had described in my previous topic, there were doubles of Zapruder/Sitzman.

They appear in Bell, Betzner, Bronson and in Wiegman as I have previously pointed out.

The Bell movie gave the alterationists troubles.

I'm pretty sure Bell filmed the 3 people behind the wall, on the steps to the pergola, as well as up on the pedestal at the same time.

This was a big problem.

What did they do to the Bell movie.

They got rid of the people on the pedestal and blurred the 3 people on the stairs.

Don't believe it, watch Bell and notice when the camera jiggling/blurring occcurs.

It happens gradually leading into Z/Sitz walking away from the wall.

If you take a look at the animation, they didn't get the wall lined up and they darkened up the background.

More importantly, the pergola light opening in Bell, is not a light opening at all.

It is a cutout window used to register pieces of film.

Besides being nowhere near the Moorman light openings, watch as the figures on the pedestal fade out and the cutout fades in.

What does the cutout encompass from the Moorman picture.

Notice the notch in the cutout, fits nicely over the Moorman figure.

Old style graphic arts, its what I've done for along time.

cheers

chris

P.S.

Do all the rescaling, resizing, reblurring, re re re you want.

It's not going to help.

Great work, Chris...it is amazing that Bell and Moorman REGISTER PRECISELY

although not shot from the same place! Give us your opinion on this.

Thanks.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure Bell filmed the 3 people behind the wall, on the steps to the pergola, as well as up on the pedestal at the same time.
Where do you get that idea? Bell stopped and started the camera several times. You are not thinking that his film is a continual record of the events - do you? He also filmed from a higher elevation than Moorman, thus his film has the train car blocking out many of the windows.
What did they do to the Bell movie.

They got rid of the people on the pedestal and blurred the 3 people on the stairs.

What people on the pedestal at the same time? By the time Bell filmed the limo passing through the underpass, Sitzman and Zapruder were already getting off the pedestal, so how does one remove an individual who has already removed themselves. Then by the time he filmed people on the walkway - it was much later and hords of people had already went up the knoll.

If you take a look at the animation, they didn't get the wall lined up and they darkened up the background.
The background is darkened because you are looking at a multigeneration copy of the Bell film. Even the people seen on the south knoll are in silhouette. You may also wish to check with Groden for it was he that worked on the existing Nix film and a process that he did when copying the film made the walkway area very dark. I suspect that Robert did the same with these other films, as well.
More importantly, the pergola light opening in Bell, is not a light opening at all.

It is a cutout window used to register pieces of film.

post-1084-1170436000_thumb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Miller" refuses to admit that ANY of the films have been altered.

He has yet to address the dress of the woman on the pedestal

in Bronson being different than the other images. If all the images

are genuine, as "Miller" claims...none of them make sense. Zapruder

is too short, Sitzman is too tall. Sitzman is not dressed right. Zapruder

is not filming.

He rufuses to address the WHITE SQUARE seen inside the pergola

in the Bell film found by Chris.

He won't address why Moorman fits Bell exactly, except for

the "train cars" blocking the sky.

He refuses to address the three people Chris found and how they

got there...though they are very clear to see.

He needs his eyes checked.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bernice....this is the thread to post the image to...it got moved to page two

in a big hurry since this morning.

Jack

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

It certainly did... :lol:

......Thanks Jack,

Your photo.....

B..

Nice catch Jack,

They're coming out of the woodworks.

Pertaining to Bell's position,

Not sure what to think of that, yet.

I'm hoping other's will join in to scrutinize this.

thanks,

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Miller" refuses to admit that ANY of the films have been altered.

He has yet to address the dress of the woman on the pedestal

in Bronson being different than the other images. If all the images

are genuine, as "Miller" claims...none of them make sense. Zapruder

is too short, Sitzman is too tall. Sitzman is not dressed right. Zapruder

is not filming.

He rufuses to address the WHITE SQUARE seen inside the pergola

in the Bell film found by Chris.

He won't address why Moorman fits Bell exactly, except for

the "train cars" blocking the sky.

He refuses to address the three people Chris found and how they

got there...though they are very clear to see.

He needs his eyes checked.

Jack

Jack, I have posted countless times explaining that Sitzman's dress looks black in Bronson's photo because of the distance he is from the subject in relation to the sun as Zapruder is casting a shadow over her. The same thing happens in the Bell film when you look at all those people on the south pasture. Part's of them that are in direct sunlight shows the color of their clothing while the rest of them being shaded looks black in color. ask yourself why it is that the street in sunlight looks gray, but the parts of it in shadow looks black! So the fact is that I have addressed this over and over and you continue to make the same stupid mistakes over and over so to make something look altered when it isn't. This is exactly why Groden said what he did in the email I shared with this forum. Groden said that you are always wrong and that you have caused a great deal of damage to the researech community over this alteration nonsense.

As far as Moorman's photo fitting exactly with the Bell film - this simply is not true, but rather you playing the "close enough" game. Bell was much higher elevated than Moorman was and Bell was off to the side of Mary's line of sight. We should know this when we align any two points of the same from both film sources and note that the background isn't seen the same way between photographer locations. You dopes keep using inferior images to where you start outlining artifacts to the point you start imagining images. It is this type of behavior that Groden commented on concerning the damage you have caused the research community by making CT's look like a bunch of incompetent boobs. If the things you jokers were saying was remotely so, then you'd be on CNN shouting these claims to the world, but you don't - why? The reason why you don't follow through with these alleged ground breaking discoveries is because you know them to be ridiculous and only worth polluting a forum such as this one with them. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for your disregard for sound basic research practices. It has become a childs game for you boobs and so much so that one of you would say, "They're coming out of the woodworks."

Bill.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Miller" refuses to admit that ANY of the films have been altered.

He has yet to address the dress of the woman on the pedestal

in Bronson being different than the other images. If all the images

are genuine, as "Miller" claims...none of them make sense. Zapruder

is too short, Sitzman is too tall. Sitzman is not dressed right. Zapruder

is not filming.

He rufuses to address the WHITE SQUARE seen inside the pergola

in the Bell film found by Chris.

He won't address why Moorman fits Bell exactly, except for

the "train cars" blocking the sky.

He refuses to address the three people Chris found and how they

got there...though they are very clear to see.

He needs his eyes checked.

Jack

Jack, I have posted countless times explaining that Sitzman's dress looks black in Bronson's photo because of the distance he is from the subject in relation to the sun as Zapruder is casting a shadow over her. The same thing happens in the Bell film when you look at all those people on the south pasture. Part's of them that are in direct sunlight shows the color of their clothing while the rest of them being shaded looks black in color. ask yourself why it is that the street in sunlight looks gray, but the parts of it in shadow looks black! So the fact is that I have addressed this over and over and you continue to make the same stupid mistakes over and over so to make something look altered when it isn't. This is exactly why Groden said what he did in the email I shared with this forum. Groden said that you are always wrong and that you have caused a great deal of damage to the researech community over this alteration nonsense.

As far as Moorman's photo fitting exactly with the Bell film - this simply is not true, but rather you playing the "close enough" game. Bell was much higher elevated than Moorman was and Bell was off to the side of Mary's line of sight. We should know this when we align any two points of the same from both film sources and note that the background isn't seen the same way between photographer locations. You dopes keep using inferior images to where you start outlining artifacts to the point you start imagining images. It is this type of behavior that Groden commented on concerning the damage you have caused the research community by making CT's look like a bunch of incompetent boobs. If the things you jokers were saying was remotely so, then you'd be on CNN shouting these claims to the world, but you don't - why? The reason why you don't follow through with these alleged ground breaking discoveries is because you know them to be ridiculous and only worth polluting a forum such as this one with them. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for your disregard for sound basic research practices. It has become a childs game for you boobs and so much so that one of you would say, "They're coming out of the woodworks."

Bill.

Well, I guess this one is just hanging out at the wall.

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Miller" refuses to admit that ANY of the films have been altered.

He has yet to address the dress of the woman on the pedestal

in Bronson being different than the other images. If all the images

are genuine, as "Miller" claims...none of them make sense. Zapruder

is too short, Sitzman is too tall. Sitzman is not dressed right. Zapruder

is not filming.

He rufuses to address the WHITE SQUARE seen inside the pergola

in the Bell film found by Chris.

He won't address why Moorman fits Bell exactly, except for

the "train cars" blocking the sky.

He refuses to address the three people Chris found and how they

got there...though they are very clear to see.

He needs his eyes checked.

Jack

Jack, I have posted countless times explaining that Sitzman's dress looks black in Bronson's photo because of the distance he is from the subject in relation to the sun as Zapruder is casting a shadow over her. The same thing happens in the Bell film when you look at all those people on the south pasture. Part's of them that are in direct sunlight shows the color of their clothing while the rest of them being shaded looks black in color. ask yourself why it is that the street in sunlight looks gray, but the parts of it in shadow looks black! So the fact is that I have addressed this over and over and you continue to make the same stupid mistakes over and over so to make something look altered when it isn't. This is exactly why Groden said what he did in the email I shared with this forum. Groden said that you are always wrong and that you have caused a great deal of damage to the researech community over this alteration nonsense.

As far as Moorman's photo fitting exactly with the Bell film - this simply is not true, but rather you playing the "close enough" game. Bell was much higher elevated than Moorman was and Bell was off to the side of Mary's line of sight. We should know this when we align any two points of the same from both film sources and note that the background isn't seen the same way between photographer locations. You dopes keep using inferior images to where you start outlining artifacts to the point you start imagining images. It is this type of behavior that Groden commented on concerning the damage you have caused the research community by making CT's look like a bunch of incompetent boobs. If the things you jokers were saying was remotely so, then you'd be on CNN shouting these claims to the world, but you don't - why? The reason why you don't follow through with these alleged ground breaking discoveries is because you know them to be ridiculous and only worth polluting a forum such as this one with them. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for your disregard for sound basic research practices. It has become a childs game for you boobs and so much so that one of you would say, "They're coming out of the woodworks."

Bill.

Well, I guess this one is just hanging out at the wall.

chris

Wow, Chris...she is sitting in this frame and the guy in the white shirt is standing.

This work needs to be carried further!

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Miller" refuses to admit that ANY of the films have been altered.

He has yet to address the dress of the woman on the pedestal

in Bronson being different than the other images. If all the images

are genuine, as "Miller" claims...none of them make sense. Zapruder

is too short, Sitzman is too tall. Sitzman is not dressed right. Zapruder

is not filming.

He rufuses to address the WHITE SQUARE seen inside the pergola

in the Bell film found by Chris.

He won't address why Moorman fits Bell exactly, except for

the "train cars" blocking the sky.

He refuses to address the three people Chris found and how they

got there...though they are very clear to see.

He needs his eyes checked.

Jack

Jack, I have posted countless times explaining that Sitzman's dress looks black in Bronson's photo because of the distance he is from the subject in relation to the sun as Zapruder is casting a shadow over her. The same thing happens in the Bell film when you look at all those people on the south pasture. Part's of them that are in direct sunlight shows the color of their clothing while the rest of them being shaded looks black in color. ask yourself why it is that the street in sunlight looks gray, but the parts of it in shadow looks black! So the fact is that I have addressed this over and over and you continue to make the same stupid mistakes over and over so to make something look altered when it isn't. This is exactly why Groden said what he did in the email I shared with this forum. Groden said that you are always wrong and that you have caused a great deal of damage to the researech community over this alteration nonsense.

As far as Moorman's photo fitting exactly with the Bell film - this simply is not true, but rather you playing the "close enough" game. Bell was much higher elevated than Moorman was and Bell was off to the side of Mary's line of sight. We should know this when we align any two points of the same from both film sources and note that the background isn't seen the same way between photographer locations. You dopes keep using inferior images to where you start outlining artifacts to the point you start imagining images. It is this type of behavior that Groden commented on concerning the damage you have caused the research community by making CT's look like a bunch of incompetent boobs. If the things you jokers were saying was remotely so, then you'd be on CNN shouting these claims to the world, but you don't - why? The reason why you don't follow through with these alleged ground breaking discoveries is because you know them to be ridiculous and only worth polluting a forum such as this one with them. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for your disregard for sound basic research practices. It has become a childs game for you boobs and so much so that one of you would say, "They're coming out of the woodworks."

Bill.

Dopes.....Incompetent Boobs.....Boobs......Jokers.....Alteration Nonsense? Is this really necessary?

Bill...please, you're killing me!

I am no expert on graphics, but, it seems to me that film from two different elevations, "much higher elevated" is how you described that difference, would not register in a manner which appears to be, as far as I can determine, virtually identical.

The concept that film shot from different elevations and from different locations could possibly be aligned in this manner seems

to be flawed reasoning.

Could you describe for me how this synchronous imaging was accomplished from two very separate locations?

Edited by Chuck Robbins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Miller" refuses to admit that ANY of the films have been altered.

He has yet to address the dress of the woman on the pedestal

in Bronson being different than the other images. If all the images

are genuine, as "Miller" claims...none of them make sense. Zapruder

is too short, Sitzman is too tall. Sitzman is not dressed right. Zapruder

is not filming.

He rufuses to address the WHITE SQUARE seen inside the pergola

in the Bell film found by Chris.

He won't address why Moorman fits Bell exactly, except for

the "train cars" blocking the sky.

He refuses to address the three people Chris found and how they

got there...though they are very clear to see.

He needs his eyes checked.

Jack

Jack, I have posted countless times explaining that Sitzman's dress looks black in Bronson's photo because of the distance he is from the subject in relation to the sun as Zapruder is casting a shadow over her. The same thing happens in the Bell film when you look at all those people on the south pasture. Part's of them that are in direct sunlight shows the color of their clothing while the rest of them being shaded looks black in color. ask yourself why it is that the street in sunlight looks gray, but the parts of it in shadow looks black! So the fact is that I have addressed this over and over and you continue to make the same stupid mistakes over and over so to make something look altered when it isn't. This is exactly why Groden said what he did in the email I shared with this forum. Groden said that you are always wrong and that you have caused a great deal of damage to the researech community over this alteration nonsense.

As far as Moorman's photo fitting exactly with the Bell film - this simply is not true, but rather you playing the "close enough" game. Bell was much higher elevated than Moorman was and Bell was off to the side of Mary's line of sight. We should know this when we align any two points of the same from both film sources and note that the background isn't seen the same way between photographer locations. You dopes keep using inferior images to where you start outlining artifacts to the point you start imagining images. It is this type of behavior that Groden commented on concerning the damage you have caused the research community by making CT's look like a bunch of incompetent boobs. If the things you jokers were saying was remotely so, then you'd be on CNN shouting these claims to the world, but you don't - why? The reason why you don't follow through with these alleged ground breaking discoveries is because you know them to be ridiculous and only worth polluting a forum such as this one with them. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for your disregard for sound basic research practices. It has become a childs game for you boobs and so much so that one of you would say, "They're coming out of the woodworks."

Bill.

Well, I guess this one is just hanging out at the wall.

chris

Wow, Chris...she is sitting in this frame and the guy in the white shirt is standing.

This work needs to be carried further!

Jack

Looks good.

thanks Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dopes.....Incompetent Boobs.....Boobs......Jokers.....Alteration Nonsense? Is this really necessary?

Bill...please, you're killing me!

I am no expert on graphics, but, it seems to me that film from two different elevations, "much higher elevated" is how you described that difference, would not register in a manner which appears to be, as far as I can determine, virtually identical.

The concept that film shot from different elevations and from different locations could possibly be aligned in this manner seems

to be flawed reasoning.

Could you describe for me how this synchronous imaging was accomplished from two very separate locations?

Chuck, the south pasture sloped downward, so yes - Bell was higher elevated and looking directly at the colonnade on a more even plane

whereas Moorman was at the curb on Elm Street and looking upward at the same structure. This is why we can see the RR cars in Bell's film and not in Moorman's. This is simple perspective that not only we were taught in grade school, but it is also something that can be duplicated by the simpliest of means right at home.

Not long ago someone on this forum thought they had a Muchmmore frame matched up to the Morman photo. The fact was that Muchmore was just off to the right of Moorman's line of sight and when the two images were overlaid ... they appeared to look close, but the background had shifted. In the example Chris made - the windows inside the colonnade shelter have shifted because the two photographers were not on the same line of sight. The RR car fills up most of the windows, thus making them appear to be blacked out. The one window that Chris draws attention to is one that I have had trouble finding on Groden's copy of the Bell film because of its poor quality. On my Bell film I can see two windows and the break in the wall that separates them. The frame Chris has opted to use is blurred just enough that the two windows have merged into one. This is why I asked that he or someone else capture another frame or two so we could make a comparison. So far this has not been done and it seems obvious to me why it hasn't.

I, as well as many other researchers, have been to the plaza and seen these views for ourselves and I am telling you that using these crappy looking frames to make claims of images being in synchronous harmony is misleading to someone who doesn't know any better. I mean look at where this has gone now ... It has taken 44 years for someone like Chris to take a poor degraded Bell frame that is filled with digital artifacts to proclaim that Zapruder and Sitzman had stand-ins. Now how insane does that appear to you! Moorman's photo is much clearer than the dark Bell frame and Mary's photo was still in her possession when filmed for TV not 30 - 35 minutes following the assassination and there are no people seen in the shelter doorway. But some boob will ignore this and continue playing games with the poor degraded image. Its like telling someone who is looking through a dirty window and thinks they see all these oddities and you offer them a view through a clean window and they say, "No thanks, I prefer using the dirty window because looking through your window isn't as much fun!" What is being done here that sickens so many other CT's is that John Kennedy's murder is being turned into a 'Gong Show' and what I am saying is shame on those who support such a piss poor level of research that is turning the purpose of this forum into a laughing stock. I mean, its OK for someone not to understand perspective, angles, film stock differences, and so forth. But it is not OK to not be smart enough to understand why someone would want to use a good image for accuracy over a poor image when it comes for looking for detail. People like Chris are either not right upstairs or are purposely trying to make CT's as a whole look like incompetent fools. How did the saying go in the movie 'JFK' ... if they can't eliminate you, then they try and discredit you. What better way to discredit a forum and or its CT's community than to have people filter in some of the most outlandish research ethics into the mix so to make ludicrous claims. It is because of this that some of us have tried to offer some balance so to counter the appearence that all CT's must be lunitics.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dopes.....Incompetent Boobs.....Boobs......Jokers.....Alteration Nonsense? Is this really necessary?

Bill...please, you're killing me!

I am no expert on graphics, but, it seems to me that film from two different elevations, "much higher elevated" is how you described that difference, would not register in a manner which appears to be, as far as I can determine, virtually identical.

The concept that film shot from different elevations and from different locations could possibly be aligned in this manner seems

to be flawed reasoning.

Could you describe for me how this synchronous imaging was accomplished from two very separate locations?

Chuck, the south pasture sloped downward, so yes - Bell was higher elevated and looking directly at the colonnade on a more even plane

whereas Moorman was at the curb on Elm Street and looking upward at the same structure. This is why we can see the RR cars in Bell's film and not in Moorman's. This is simple perspective that not only we were taught in grade school, but it is also something that can be duplicated by the simpliest of means right at home.

Not long ago someone on this forum thought they had a Muchmmore frame matched up to the Morman photo. The fact was that Muchmore was just off to the right of Moorman's line of sight and when the two images were overlaid ... they appeared to look close, but the background had shifted. In the example Chris made - the windows inside the colonnade shelter have shifted because the two photographers were not on the same line of sight. The RR car fills up most of the windows, thus making them appear to be blacked out. The one window that Chris draws attention to is one that I have had trouble finding on Groden's copy of the Bell film because of its poor quality. On my Bell film I can see two windows and the break in the wall that separates them. The frame Chris has opted to use is blurred just enough that the two windows have merged into one. This is why I asked that he or someone else capture another frame or two so we could make a comparison. So far this has not been done and it seems obvious to me why it hasn't.

I, as well as many other researchers, have been to the plaza and seen these views for ourselves and I am telling you that using these crappy looking frames to make claims of images being in synchronous harmony is misleading to someone who doesn't know any better. I mean look at where this has gone now ... It has taken 44 years for someone like Chris to take a poor degraded Bell frame that is filled with digital artifacts to proclaim that Zapruder and Sitzman had stand-ins. Now how insane does that appear to you! Moorman's photo is much clearer than the dark Bell frame and Mary's photo was still in her possession when filmed for TV not 30 - 35 minutes following the assassination and there are no people seen in the shelter doorway. But some boob will ignore this and continue playing games with the poor degraded image. Its like telling someone who is looking through a dirty window and thinks they see all these oddities and you offer them a view through a clean window and they say, "No thanks, I prefer using the dirty window because looking through your window isn't as much fun!" What is being done here that sickens so many other CT's is that John Kennedy's murder is being turned into a 'Gong Show' and what I am saying is shame on those who support such a piss poor level of research that is turning the purpose of this forum into a laughing stock. I mean, its OK for someone not to understand perspective, angles, film stock differences, and so forth. But it is not OK to not be smart enough to understand why someone would want to use a good image for accuracy over a poor image.

Bill Miller

I understand your concern about artifacts and their interpretation.

I also see where you are concerned about the quality of the images used.

I still do not understand how two different perspectives produced images which, for all intents, can merge almost flawlessly.

This is not, I believe, a product of artifacts or quality of images.

I still do not understand how film, shot from different locations, produce images which are seemingly shot from nearly identical locations.

It must be something I am incapable of understanding as I truly wish I could understand what seems to me to be an impossibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dopes.....Incompetent Boobs.....Boobs......Jokers.....Alteration Nonsense? Is this really necessary?

Bill...please, you're killing me!

I am no expert on graphics, but, it seems to me that film from two different elevations, "much higher elevated" is how you described that difference, would not register in a manner which appears to be, as far as I can determine, virtually identical.

The concept that film shot from different elevations and from different locations could possibly be aligned in this manner seems

to be flawed reasoning.

Could you describe for me how this synchronous imaging was accomplished from two very separate locations?

Chuck, the south pasture sloped downward, so yes - Bell was higher elevated and looking directly at the colonnade on a more even plane

whereas Moorman was at the curb on Elm Street and looking upward at the same structure. This is why we can see the RR cars in Bell's film and not in Moorman's. This is simple perspective that not only we were taught in grade school, but it is also something that can be duplicated by the simpliest of means right at home.

Not long ago someone on this forum thought they had a Muchmmore frame matched up to the Morman photo. The fact was that Muchmore was just off to the right of Moorman's line of sight and when the two images were overlaid ... they appeared to look close, but the background had shifted. In the example Chris made - the windows inside the colonnade shelter have shifted because the two photographers were not on the same line of sight. The RR car fills up most of the windows, thus making them appear to be blacked out. The one window that Chris draws attention to is one that I have had trouble finding on Groden's copy of the Bell film because of its poor quality. On my Bell film I can see two windows and the break in the wall that separates them. The frame Chris has opted to use is blurred just enough that the two windows have merged into one. This is why I asked that he or someone else capture another frame or two so we could make a comparison. So far this has not been done and it seems obvious to me why it hasn't.

I, as well as many other researchers, have been to the plaza and seen these views for ourselves and I am telling you that using these crappy looking frames to make claims of images being in synchronous harmony is misleading to someone who doesn't know any better. I mean look at where this has gone now ... It has taken 44 years for someone like Chris to take a poor degraded Bell frame that is filled with digital artifacts to proclaim that Zapruder and Sitzman had stand-ins. Now how insane does that appear to you! Moorman's photo is much clearer than the dark Bell frame and Mary's photo was still in her possession when filmed for TV not 30 - 35 minutes following the assassination and there are no people seen in the shelter doorway. But some boob will ignore this and continue playing games with the poor degraded image. Its like telling someone who is looking through a dirty window and thinks they see all these oddities and you offer them a view through a clean window and they say, "No thanks, I prefer using the dirty window because looking through your window isn't as much fun!" What is being done here that sickens so many other CT's is that John Kennedy's murder is being turned into a 'Gong Show' and what I am saying is shame on those who support such a piss poor level of research that is turning the purpose of this forum into a laughing stock. I mean, its OK for someone not to understand perspective, angles, film stock differences, and so forth. But it is not OK to not be smart enough to understand why someone would want to use a good image for accuracy over a poor image.

Bill Miller

I understand your concern about artifacts and their interpretation.

I also see where you are concerned about the quality of the images used.

I still do not understand how two different perspectives produced images which, for all intents, can merge almost flawlessly.

This is not, I believe, a product of artifacts or quality of images.

I still do not understand how film, shot from different locations, produce images which are seemingly shot from nearly identical locations.

It must be something I am incapable of understanding as I truly wish I could understand what seems to me to be an impossibility.

Chuck,

Bill makes it sound like I'm trying to somehow fool others while posting blurry photos.

I post what I discover.

If other's don't have access to this material, by all means, ask me if I can post something with a better frame for comparison.

The frame I used for the Bell/Wiegman comparison is the same one I used to show the 3 people on the stairs to the pergola.

Is it blurry, sure it is.

By the way, this is Groden's version I'm using. As I have asked before, if others have better material, please post it.

Here is another comparison with a better frame.

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...