Jump to content
The Education Forum

Swan-Song -- Math Rules


Recommended Posts

Bumping this because it needs to.  Of course Chris will as usual ignore it instead of trying to show why this bump is not correct and why others (not just me) are wrong:

On 3/16/2018 at 5:21 PM, Michael Walton said:
On 3/16/2018 at 2:59 PM, Chris Davidson said:

They make perfect sense to about the 1% who are intelligent enough to follow.

What's wrong, even when spoon-fed, are you having troubles ingesting information?

Here you go Chris.  I guess there are quite a few 1% folks out there who also don't agree with these outrageous claims of fakery. I'm not going to tell you where I got these quotes. I figure you're a big boy and can look them up yourself.  But they're all documented and they've even been written by pro- Warren Commision supporters. I guess there are 1% folks on both sides of the aisle. And one of the quotes here is from someone your buddy Dave Josephs has the "utmost respect" for.

So you see, Chris, it's not just me - there are many folks out there who think what you're doing here makes absolutely no sense at all, just like it makes no sense when you think shots came from the pavilion.

When the Zapruder film was first shown on American television in 1975, it created a public outcry so great that Congress had little choice but to reopen the Kenendy case. The sight of President Kennedy's head snapping violently backwards by several inches in just a few 18ths of a second appeared to most as obvious evidence of a frontal shot. As Congressman Thomas N. Downing noted after a private viewing of the film on April 15, 1975, "It convinced me that there was more than one assassin."

The alteration argument vis-à-vis the Zapruder film has been prone to a certain illiteracy regarding the mechanics and science of special-effects filmmaking, specifically the use of the optical printer, which ranges from mildly informed to wildly uninformed, even as the whole of the argument requires intervention of such machines. Roland Zavada, a retired Kodak specialist hired by the ARRB to authenticate the Zapruder film, explained technical issues mitigating against alteration in a patient, if somewhat exasperated, response to Doug Horne’s theories and criticism published in the fourth volume of Horne’s Inside the Assassination Record Review Board.4 The substance of Zavada’s response can be, and is, supported by relevant professional technical and descriptive texts, as well as, if sought, personal affidavit from technicians experienced in practical application of optical printers for celluloid-based motion pictures (a skill set largely displaced since the advent of digital technologies).

Any element within the frame said to have been removed from the Zapruder film would require an equal consistent element to replace it; for instance, removing a bystander from the Dealey Plaza lawn would require additonal lawn in place for the requisite number of frames, just as a replaced bystander closer to Elm Street would require a replacement background consistent with what already is visible (portions of road, sidewalk, landscaping and other persons). These replacement elements must also adjust plausibly in perspective as Zapruder’s camera drifts and pans, and blur when the camera is unsteady. Again, this is long before digital technologies, and the workspace of each individual celluloid frame was 8mm in diameter.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 842
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

4 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Bumping this because it needs to.  Of course Chris will as usual ignore it instead of trying to show why this bump is not correct and why others (not just me) are wrong:

 

Michael,

Please try to construct sentences. That would be helpful to those taking the time to pay any attention to your posts.

Edited by Michael Clark
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Michael,

Please try to construct sentences. That would be helpful to those taking the time to pay any attention to your posts.

 

Michael,

With all due respect, and FWIW, I understand them just fine.

--  Tommy  :sun

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Michael,

With all due respect, and FWIW, I understand them just fine.

--  Tommy  :sun

Tommy,

Would you take a guess at what your advice is worth; and, for that matter, your respect?

Edited by Michael Clark
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Michael,

With all due respect, and FWIW, I understand them just fine.

--  Tommy  :sun

And to be sure, this is coming from our in-house language Nazi; from whom, I hate to admit it, I have been encouraged to try to learn the rules, and write and speak properly.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Michael,

Please try to construct sentences. That would be helpful to those taking the time to pay any attention to your posts.

Mike,

As Jeremy said recently, I'd appreciate it if you would stop following me around here on this forum. It's getting ridiculous. If you want to post a constructive rebuttal to my rebuttal fine. But you're not the traffic cop of this board, nor am I or anyone else for that matter. If you've forgotten about this already, I'm posting what Jeremy said here below

If you have another theory like the one you came up with a while back (Ruby's nightclub's basement was assassination HQ with Ruby making high balls for Dulles, Nixon Hunt, the Oswald clone, and Gen Walker as they watched the assassination unfold on closed circuit televisions) then by all means post it.  But stop following me around on here. It's getting to the point of being weird.

***

Jeremy Bojczuk

  • Experienced Member
  •  
  • Jeremy Bojczuk
  • Members
  •  
  • 143 posts
  • Gender:Male

Michael Clark seems to be obsessed about Michael Walton, for some weird personal reason. Was he bullied at school by someone called Michael Walton? Did someone called Michael Walton pip him to first prize in the local fruit and vegetable growers' largest-pumpkin competition? I think we should be told.

Mr Clark writes:

  Quote

All you really talk about, all you focus on, is the opinions and works of forum members who have found a place on your hit list.

But it is the other way around: it's Mr Clark, not Mr Walton, who does little other than write about forum members (or at least one forum member), while Mr Walton does little other than deal with the JFK assassination, the topic we are all meant to be discussing. Perhaps, instead of making yet another personal attack, Mr Clark could offer an opinion about the question Mr Walton raised:

  Quote

So tell me - from the time the hearse left Parkland - in broad daylight and around the general public - until the coffin was hauled up the steps into 26000 how did the Mad Doctors open up the coffin, take the body out, put it into a body bag and hide it - somewhere(!) - and not a single person in that caravan has ever come forward to say "Yes, I saw it happen" 54 years on?

Exactly how, where, when and by whom was JFK's body switched, Mr Clark? And, more to the point, how much direct evidence (i.e. documentary evidence and witness testimony) exists to support the speculative notion that the body was switched? There isn't any, is there? There are no films or photographs that can be interpreted as showing the body being switched. As Mr Walton pointed out, not a single person claimed to have seen the body being switched. Don't you find the absence of direct evidence for the most fundamental part of Lifton's theory to be even a little worrying?

Here's another question for Mr Clark: why, in your opinion, would anyone even need to alter the wounds on JFK's body? The only reason I can think of, and the only reason Lifton could think of, is that the wounds were manipulated to disguise the fact that all the shots were fired from in front of JFK. Here's what Lifton had to say on the matter (Best Evidence, Signet edition, p.400):

  Quote

to be able to shoot the President, retrieve the bullets, and insure that afterward it appeared the shots came from behind, the real bullets had to be fired from the front.

Unless all the shots had come from the front, there was no need for any sort of elaborate body-switching and surrogate surgery. Unfortunately for Lifton's speculative theory, we know for a fact that not all the shots came from the front. The shot which wounded Governor Connally hit him in the back and came out of his chest. That shot must have been fired from behind, not from the front, mustn't it? Perhaps Mr Clark could point out where in Best Evidence David Lifton discusses this rather severe problem for his theory. He doesn't mention it, does he? Isn't that, too, a little worrying?

For a concise but potent critique of Lifton's body-alteration fantasy, go to your bookshelves, take down your copy of David Wrone's The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination (University Press of Kansas, 2003), and turn to pages 134-138. Prof. Wrone concludes by making the obvious point that the only people to benefit from this sort of outlandish everything-is-a-fake nonsense are those who want to portray every critic of the lone-nut hypothesis as a tin-foil-hat-wearing lunatic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

And to be sure, this is coming from our in-house language Nazi; from whom, I hate to admit it, I have been encouraged to try to learn the rules, and write and speak properly.


Michael,

 

I would like to congratulate you on the perfect syntax, grammar, and vocabulary you've used in the above sentence!

 

Just remember:  You can really impress highly-educated, literature readin' folks by remembering and applying the rule (as that Hungarian boy, "Harvey, evidently did") "the gerund takes the possessive."

 

Your favorite "Grammar xxxx",

--  Tommy  :sun

 

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:


Michael,

I would like to congratulate you on the perfect syntax, grammar, and vocabulary you've incorporated in the above sentence.

Just remember:  You can really impress highly-educated, literature readin' folks by remembering and applying the rule (as that Hungarian boy, "Harvey, evidently did") "the gerund takes the possessive."

 

Your favorite "Grammar xxxx",

--  Tommy  :sun

Lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

40823594092_677602f5ae_z.jpg

The "official" WC documentation put the distance between StationC and extant z161@ 94.7ft.

If you care to use my "unofficial" path described above, my distance = 45.8ft + 48.9ft = 94.7ft.

The same distance. What a surprise.

Can you guess what geometric shape is formed when combining the official and unofficial paths?

 

 

The blue shape for those who need help.

39971898275_93ac909988.jpg 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

The blue shape for those who need help.

39971898275_93ac909988.jpg 

Briefly,

Rotate the blue triangle clockwise so the WC labeled PositionA connects to the "+" mark representing Station# 275.0

A right triangle is then formed by extending the base to the intersection of (Zapruders LOS and Robert West's path) then back to the WC labeled PositionA = the hypotenuse.

Something along this line: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_mean_theorem

Onto frame counting. within this blue triangle span.

40882826321_70ab16f078.jpg

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Sweet...   

Wonder where the limo was in relation to the green box intersection before and after the Towner splice...

Or z133....

Edit... Or that may be too late already

Where the limo was?  Towner splice? Really Chris and Dave? Here's all the proof you need that no alteration took place.  It's right in front of you here and all you have to do is get "the big bad government" out of your heads and you'd then see it:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

A right triangle is then formed by extending the base to the intersection of (Zapruders LOS and Robert West's path) then back to the WC labeled PositionA = the hypotenuse.

Onto frame counting. within this blue triangle span.

40882826321_70ab16f078.jpg

 

 

 

The location that is StationC =. Station# 234.5 to Station# 329.2 (extant z161) = 94.7ft + 5.3ft = Station# 334.5 = distance of 100ft = the intersection of (Zapruders LOS and Robert West's path) then back to the WC labeled PositionA = the hypotenuse. 

Of course 5.3ft being the Pivot of PositionA into a right triangle.

Let the WC confirm that for you:

27015773728_c49fc04580_b.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...