Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

 

It's a good rhetorical question, Paz; and good on you for raising it again. 

The answer is that at least there was negligence in protecting President; but that only goes so far if one even does believe in LHO as the lone assassin. Second place for an answer goes to the "benign cover-up" for a lone-nut scenario. But,  as most of us believe, the obvious answer is that there was a criminal conspiracy involving people in power who had the means to both kill JFK and managed the cover-up.

 

Yes and the government continues to use this umbrella of an excuse to redact and withhold records.  If there is nothing to hide, given the LHO lone assassin conclusion, why not release everything in full?  What are they hiding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2018 at 3:52 PM, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Hi David , I don't understand your post. I am interested in understanding it, but  rather than explain I would greatly appreciate your help in another area. Would you be willing to provide a guide to the work of Chris (math rules) Davidson. I have asked him to explain his thread and I suspect you are one of the few people who understand what he has done. You have shown great skill with explanatory diagrams and unravelling complex issues (Oswald's Mexico travel for example) and I suspect he is on to something very significant. He doesn't however seem to have a desire to appeal to the masses.

Eddy- do you not remember that I tried to explain this Math Rules caper back in March 2018? I was trying to help you understand - since you asked about it then and are asking about again here - just what exactly the two other researchers are trying to do with all of these mathematical formulas?

So I've copied the exact same reply I sent to you below from back in March 2018. After I posted the below in March, one of the True Believers of the mathematical "work" had a pretty funny reply.  He told me to go boil an egg.  You know, similar to telling someone to "go fly a kite." Whenever I come across that "boil an egg" quote, it gives me a good little laugh.

Eddy,

Let me see if I can help you understand and boil down Chris and Dave's math theory to the bare essentials.

The bottom line is two FBI guys made a diorama of Dealey Plaza the weekend of the murder.  The first version of their diorama showed little toy cars on Elm Street in the position of the shots. They obviously made a mistake because for the Z313 shot - the head shot - they had the car way down almost right next to the knoll steps where the old guys were standing.  We all know that that's not what really happened.

Now try to keep an open mind here.  But how do we know that the head shot did not happen way down there?  It's simple - you just have to watch the existing Zapruder film.  And even better, you can also watch the Nix film.  As a matter of fact, there exists a video on YTV where someone took both of the films and matched them up frame per frame.  The end result proves two things: 1) both films match up perfectly; 2) both films prove that the FBI guys who made their diorama got it wrong.

That, in a nutshell, is basically it. The FBI guys made a mistake.  And during that weekend, the diorama was corrected and the head shot was brought up to where it's supposed to be, more or less the same position as what we see in the Z film and also the Nix film.

Simple, right?  Not according to Chris and Dave.  The Math Team here thinks that something far more sinister happened.  They think that an entirely different Z film exists showing shots that actually happened way down by the steps and the old guys. They also believe that the Z film that we can see on YTV was actually filmed in 48 FPS, and then, sneakily and sinisterly, the Bad Secret Agents took out 67% of those frames.  It *used to be* 67% but now Chris is saying it's 72% of the frames.  But anyway, these removed frames removed enough of the footage to move the shots to where we basically see them on any YTV Zapruder copy.

So where does the Math come in? The FBI also did a survey of Dealey so Chris and Dave here are using Math and Geometry to further "prove" that this non-existent secret never-before-seen-by-the-public Z film exists. That's what it all boils down to.

Now keep in mind here that Dave Josephs, who is completely and totally anti-WC, meaning he supposedly does not believe *anything* in that written record, will actually pick and choose from that lying xxxx of a document to further "solve" this theory. In other words, he doesn't believe the WC except when it helps him "prove" one of this theories.

And now, their more recent exciting and revealing solution to this theory is the Tina Towner film has been discovered to be fake as well(!)

But anyway, this is basically what they're doing - they're adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing, and formulizing the numbers - and numbers from those numbers - from the surveys to prove all of this. They're both playing the John Nash secret agent role here.  Remember that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB9Gzz3yhYY

No matter what you tell them - that there's only one Z film and that film *proves conspiracy* because the shooting sequence completely negates the ridiculous SBT - neither of them will listen.  In their minds, they're 100% correct and deep into this theory of numbers and missing frames and fake films and the lying liars FBI agents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Eddy- do you not remember that I tried to explain this Math Rules caper back in March 2018? I was trying to help you understand - since you asked about it then and are asking about again here - just what exactly the two other researchers are trying to do with all of these mathematical formulas?

 

 We all know that that's not what really happened.

Now try to keep an open mind here.  

 

Hi Michael, The Ignore function on The Education forum is extremely valuable. I have you on Ignore. I have edited your reply to my post to demonstrate why you are on ignore. You have used two phrases that set my alarm bells off. "We all know that that's what really happened"  is a phrase that will never be used by someone honestly interested in JKF's assassination. The phrase "Now try to keep an open mind here" has been used by you to convey the impossibility of keeping an open mind 'here'. I find reading anything I don't have an open mind about intolerable. Its a pity you don't.

On the subject of the ignore function. I had hoped to monitor the people I ignore, in case they said something worthwhile, by seeing how their posts were reflected by others. That bit of the plan hasn't worked yet, but I'll keep trying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2018 at 5:42 PM, B. A. Copeland said:

What I'd like to know is, what or how exactly, is Buell Wesley Frazier's polygraph exam considered a national security risk as well?

That, my friend, is a great question. I'd love to see a legitimate answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 10:00 PM, David Josephs said:

LOL...

My point above is only that PEOPLE are the problem, not the institutions/agencies.  Google "Tragedy of the Commons" - basically it's the concept that a for shared resource among a community where shared and equal use returns the best yields, the "Tragedy" is that PEOPLE will be motivated to use more of the "Commons" than is prudent since there is no explicit rule against it, on the altruism of the community...

--

Hi David, many thanks for your excellent reply . You have reinforced my understanding of the troubling adjustment of the survey plat and the plausible but complex explanation of the reasons for it. I am convinced by the acoustic data, but not by D B Thomas's matching of the shots to the  Zapruder film ( http://www.whokilledjfk.net/d_b_thomas_report.htm )

He uses the Film speed as 18.3 fps and you are challenging this. Are you able to use the acoustic evidence to assist in yours and Chris's analysis? I think the first thing you would have to address is your assertion that there was multiple shots fired at exactly the same time, since the acoustic evidence and analysis does not support that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/20/2018 at 8:43 AM, Mark Knight said:

That, my friend, is a great question. I'd love to see a legitimate answer.

Thanks Mark. Here's hoping....it is blatantly suspicious  in my mind and I hate going that route but....

Edited by B. A. Copeland

Share this post


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

×