Swan-Song -- Math Rules

[David Josephs]

DB is ABSOLUTELY the DEFINITIVE source for the processing of the Z-film...

Sat night, yes.. not Sunday though. And you make a great point Tom... when Dino says the briefing boards aren't the ones he created that pretty much puts a nail in it.

DB was completely unaware that Homer McMahon and team worked on a 16mm film Sunday night according to Horne's transcripts.

Arthur Lundahl could have known of both events - but he never gave it away.

"Lundahl was a high-ranking CIA employee described in White House papers as "perhaps the most distinguished authority in the United States on photographic intelligence...the top photographic intelligence officer in the United States government and, as such, he has been involved in the most important photographic problems affecting national security..."

Lundahl, using Dino's boards, briefs McCone Sunday morning. http://jfkfacts.org/cia-chief-told-rfk-about-two-shooters-in-dallas/

"According to Brugioni, Lundahl went to the office of CIA Director John McCone, taking along briefing notes Brugioni had prepared for him. Lundal briefed McCone on the CIAs analysis of the blown-up frames of the Zapruder film. He returned to NPIC later Sunday morning, November 24, and thanked everyone for their efforts the previous night, telling them that the briefing of McCone had gone well."

Hi David,

That's an excellent point that you make re DB's knowledge of what happened on Saturday vs. what he did NOT know about what happened on Sunday AFTER the initial CIA briefing. Clearly it was decided that the film in its original form was unacceptable.

I believe Art Lundahl knew EXACTLY what was done, and by whom.

Possibly you can help me understand why some many otherwise knowledgeable use the following reasoning to dismiss any possibility of Z-film alteration:

"If the Z-film was altered, then WHY is there STILL evidence of a frontal head shot in it? If it had been altered, they would have removed this!"

My answer, which doesn't satisfy any of them, has always been:

Using 1960's technology, they did their best to remove any evidence contrary to 'LHO acting alone shot JFK from the TSBD', so the film could be released. However, the results were unacceptable, SO THEY USED LIFE MAGAZINE TO PREVENT RELEASE OF THE FILM!

It was not seen by the public until 12 years after the assassination, when Geraldo Rivera, despite threats of prosecution, showed an illegally acquired bootleg version on national television.

IF the film had been released shortly after the assassination you would have a valid point. But it was NOT released - it was leaked. Following this event, all they could do was attempt damage control.

I can NOT understand what is wrong with the logic in my explanation, but it never changes anyone's mind.

Tom

Hey there Tom....

First off I believe that the film finally arriving Sat night at NPIC had already been worked on... the only film account I've heard that may be the actual film was the one shown to a handful of people - some of whom post here - which shows the full turn onto Elm, the full stop, the agents leaving the Queen Mary, the frontal up-lifting shot....

As for your answer - I'm fully confident that anything that needed to be done could be done at Hawkeyeworks. Dino recounts that the headshot lasted over many more than a single frame yet very little is asked and answered regarding the main anomalies we see. After that weekend the film was not shown publicly, as you say... Even Zapruder was only shown individual frames.

JFK was shot in the head so the film MUST show that shot. As I watch it 313 looks like a frontal shot to the right temple - right where the hole is on the Fox photos - so can you imagine what it looked like before it was cleaned up? The gov't story still needed as much BS science as they could find so we have the "Jet-effect" and other crap.

What they forget to mention is the slight movement forward... Newton's 3rd law - For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Yet once that impact and resistance is overcome there is a transfer of momentum which pushes the bullet thru JFK and pushes JFK's head backward. Once his body's muscles lose signal - which is virtually instantly - it falls in the direction opposite of the shot's originating location.

As for changing hearts and minds... those who still cling to Zfilm as authentic usually have other beliefs connected to that required truth and therefore one's POV may be too severely compromised to allow for that acceptance.

Any student of this case who understands the conspiracy perpetrated has to work extra hard to allow for this film to be accurate and authentic. In 1963 and the years that followed there was a reluctant acceptance of the WCR by most even in the face of evidence like this... yet as you say, it was not seen as a movie until 1975 and even then it is obvious the shot came from the front... but with enough mumbo-jumbo science "the public" was convinced yet remained skeptical.

When the "original" film has none of the tell tale unique markings the film should have - I fail to understand what logic our two devil's-advocates are using? WCD298, CE884, CE560, CE875 are all lies to support a framing and all we are doing is unraveling the steps to see if anything of what we see in the evidence relates to anything that actually could have happened.

So here we are at the end of April 1964 with a revelation of what has yet to be done related to this "accurate depiction of the assassination" and what the report will tell us....

April 27, 1964

MEMORANDUM

TO: J. Lee Rankin

FROM: Norman Redlich

The purpose of this memorandum is to explain the reasons why

certain members of the staff feel that it is important to take certain

on-site photographs in connection with the location of the approximate

points at which the three bullets struck the occupants of the

Presidential limousine.

Our report presumably will state that the President was hit by

the first bullet, Governor Connally by the second, and the President

by the third and fatal bullet. The report will also conclude that the

bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast

corner window of the TSBD building.

As our investigation now stands, however, we have not shown

that these events could possibly have occurred in the manner suggested

above. All we have is a reasonable hypothesis which appears to be

supported by the medical testimony but which has not been checked out

against the physical facts at the scene of the assassination.

Our examination of the Zapruder films shows that the fatal

third shot struck the President at a point which we can locate with

reasonable accuracy on the ground. We can do this because we know the

exact frame (no. 313) in the film at which the third shot hit the

President and we know the location of the photographer. By lining up

fixed objects in the movie frame where this shot occurs we feel that

we have determined the approximate location of this shot. This can be

verified by a photo of the same spot from the point where Zapruder was

standing.

We have the testimony of Governor and Mrs. Connally that the

Governor was hit with the second bullet at a point which we probably

cannot fix with precision. We feel we have established, however, with

the help of medical testimony, that the shot which hit the Governor

did not come after frame 240 on the Zapruder film. The governor feels

that it came around 230, which is certainly consistent with our

observations of the film and with the doctor's testimony. Since the

President was shot at frame 313, this would leave a time of at least 4

seconds between the two shots, certainly ample for even an

inexperienced marksman.

Prior to our last viewing of the films with Governor Connally

we had assumed that the President was hit while he was concealed

behind the sign which occurs between frames 215-225. We have expert

testimony to the effect that a skilled marksman would require a

minimum 2 seconds between shots with this rifle. Since the camera

operates at 18 1/3 frames per second, there would have to be a minimum

of 40 frames between shots. It is apparent, therefore, that if

Governor Connally was even as late as frame 240, the President would

have to have been hit no later than frame 190 and probably even

earlier.

We have not yet examined the assassination scene to determine

whether the assassin in fact could have shot the President prior to

frame 190. We could locate the position on the ground which

corresponds to this frame and it would then be our intent to establish

by photography that the assassin would have fired the first shot at the

President prior to this point. Our intention is not to establish the point with

complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies

the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin.

I had always assumed that our final report would be

accompanied by a surveyor's diagram which would indicate the

approximate location of the three shots. We certainly cannot prepare

such a diagram without establishing that we are describing an

occurrence which is physically possible. Our failure to do this will,

in my opinion, place this Report in jeopardy since it is a certainty

that others will examine the Zapruder films and raise the same

questions which have been raised by our examination of the films. If

we do not attempt to answer these observable facts, others may answer

them with facts which challenge our most basic assumptions, or with

fanciful theories based on our unwillingness to test our assumptions

by the investigatory methods available to us.

I should add that the facts which we now have in our possession,

submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and Secret Service, are totally incorrect

and, if left uncorrected, will present a completely misleading picture.

It may well be that this project should be undertaken by the

FBI and Secret Service with our assistance instead of being done as a

staff project. The important thing is that the project be undertaken

expeditiously.

Between this memo and the end of June the "2 totally incorrect reports" of the FBI and SS are materially changed. We KNOW these reports are incorrect as did the WC lawyers - but we don't know what about them was being identified as incorrect other than there being a shot placed AFTER z313. So it was fixed and the 3rd shot was moved back up the street 39.66 feet to a location that does not match any of the three locations the first survey offered.

The work we are doing here (mostly with Chris' math brain) is to unravel what the FBI and SS did to create plausible and believable evidence that three and only three shots were fired. As a result, once the limo turns onto Elm there is no place between z190 and z313 to place a "believable" shot since there is not evidence of a shot after the Stemmons sign until 313.

So the FBI/SS created a shot location further down Elm and then completely removes it contradicting their initial "offerings"

Even if a shot hits Tague after the curb, it's plot-able yet would make the "marksman" Oswald look incredibly inept by being both highly accurate and amazingly off target - so it disappears and the WCR tells us they don't know which shot missed.

The FBI was famous for these types of actions against the evidence as anyone who takes the time to read history learns.

Why anyone who understand this as a conspiracy would be so condescending and unforgiving of those of us taking the extra steps to unravel some of the Zfilm/DP mysteries is beyond me.

[Chris Davidson]

Chris -

Why are we talking hypotenuse at 170' when Eisenberg is talking flat-line at ground level of 175'?

The 170.4' = 61' + 110' = 171' ?? Eisenberg's flat-line distance at 175' is a 423' elevation.

Your graphic connects the Oblique side, side "c", with Mandel's 170' statement which is then connected to Eisenberg's 175' notation as the base of the triangle, or am I reading that wrong?

The 168.34' on West's 207 analysis remains the same down to the pavement - so which is it? 168.34', 170', 171' or 175' ?? and we are talking about the JFK position, the JC position or the bumpers?

A thought - shot 207 is meant to describe the Connelly shot, the difference at 207: 423.75 - 423.07 = .68 x 18.3 = 12.444 feet up Elm... yet

"423.07" is Eisenberg's 175' flat-line measurement. 175' = 423.07 = station 3+81.34 - 12.44 = 162.56' at station 3+68.87.

Station 3+71.1 is 2.23 feet further down Elm than 3+68.87 or the distance between JFK and JC ???

David,

Even though the notation is at the base of the triangle in CE560, the distance is referring to the hypotenuse.

If in agreement, I'll go on.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, did you have a test run to determine the possibility of scoring hits with this weapon, Exhibit 139, on a given target at a given distance under rapid fire conditions?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we did. We placed three targets, which were head and shoulder silhouettes, at distances of 175 feet, 240 feet, and 265 feet, and these distances are slant ranges from the window ledge of a tower which is about 30 feet high. We used three firers in an attempt to obtain hits on all three targets within as short a time interval as possible.

Finally found what the minor discrepancy was with Breneman. Located from an old post of Tom P.

We now know that Mandel got his measurements from Breneman for his article.

We know Robert West corrected Breneman's errors for the 170ft distance and changed it to 174.54ft.

The 175ft slant distance represents JFK's position in the limo(not including his head height above the ground) in extant z207.

[David Josephs]

For the record, the alleged Z-film is altered, frames were removed (film break LIFE, Chicago) and Z-frames were transposed (per JEH-FBI).

It's no secret that the film was damaged and spliced, and that Commission Exhibit 885 is inaccurate: two frames were printed in the wrong order, one frame was omitted, and another frame was printed twice. The point at issue is whether the Bad Guys in some way altered the film to materially change its depiction of events in Dealey Plaza.

[The Zapruder film is] the most important piece of case evidence used to implicate LHO as the **sole** assassin of JFK and the SBT.

In what way does the Zapruder film as we know it implicate Oswald and justify the single-bullet theory? There is the lapel flap in frame 224, which is supposed to have been caused by a shot hitting Kennedy and then Connally, but it's hardly conclusive. Governor Connally himself implied that he didn't believe this interpretation, by claiming that he wasn't hit until several frames later. Presumably the lapel flap was painted in by the Bad Guys, who forgot to send Connally the memo (as we will see, that wasn't the only thing they forgot to do).

The Zapruder film as we know it actually provides plenty of evidence, some of it found nowhere else, that contradicts the lone-nut hypothesis:

• It is the only item of evidence which restricts the official shooting time, or at least the only plausible version of the shooting time, to less than six seconds. Without this constraint, it would have been easy to claim that the hypothetical lone nut had more than enough time to aim carefully and fire three shots from his rickety old rifle, hitting the target twice. It is fundamentally due to the Zapruder film that we know that the timing alone makes the lone-nut hypothesis extremely improbable, since a majority of the expert marksmen who have attempted to duplicate Oswald's supposed feat have been unable to do so.
• The Zapruder film is the only item of photographic evidence which shows Connally's apparent reaction to being shot, several frames after Kennedy has already been hit. Again, Connally himself stated that this element of the Zapruder film matched his recollection of the shooting. If Connally was correct, the Zapruder film explicitly contradicts the single-bullet theory.
• And then there's the 'back and to the left' reaction to the head shot. Whether or not it actually implies a shot from the front, that's how it appears to most people. Those frames of the Zapruder film may have been the single most significant factor in rekindling public scepticism of the case against Oswald, firstly after the early bootleg screenings, and then after the film's television broadcast in 1975 and its inclusion in Oliver Stone's JFK.

That's what makes the whole 'Zapruder film is faked' thing so bizarre and laughable. The Bad Guys went to all this trouble to fake the film, but they forgot to replace the parts that undermine the lone-nut hypothesis. Whoops! They only faked the parts they didn't need to fake. Silly Bad Guys! And having incompetently faked the film to fool the public, they didn't force it on the public at every opportunity. Instead, they kept it out of the public's view for as long as they could.

The entire argument is presented in this thread

The point Michael Walton made is that the way the argument is presented, as a long series of unexplained, cryptic equations, is a terrible way to communicate a sound argument. It is, however, a good way to disguise a weak argument. This method may work with the faithful, but if you want to convince open-minded non-believers, you need to set out the case for alteration in a way that makes it as easy as possible for people to follow.

You could begin by telling us in plain English exactly which elements of the Zapruder film you consider not to be authentic. Did the Bad Guys fake the whole thing, including all those frames that undermine the lone-nut hypothesis? If not, precisely which frames have been tampered with? The less vague you can make it, the less like paranoid wishful thinking your case will seem to be.

Once you have defined the extent of the forgery, perhaps you could justify your claim by pointing out exactly how the faked frames are inconsistent with other items of the photographic record. Unfortunately, no-one has yet managed to identify a single such anomaly that doesn't have a non-conspiratorial explanation, which leads us to only two possible conclusions: either the bulk of the photographic record, including the Zapruder film, has been tampered with, or the bulk of the photographic record, including the Zapruder film, is authentic. Personally, I'd go for the latter option.

you barged into the conversation

Pardon me for intruding into your private discussion! I thought it was open to any member of the Education Forum.

JB - I appreciate the time taken to present what you see as your side of this discussion. Amazingly enough, Chris and I have no specific responsibility to explain to either you or Michael what is going on here. It is incumbent on the two of you to work it thru or ask questions to help you better understand... and when you do ask and answers are provided, you pre-conceived notion of what SHOULD be clouds your review of the evidence related to the MATH.

After Sandy asks a few questions and thanks Chris for the answer Mike chimes in, is replied to and then a week passes when Chris asks Mike to do something related to what we are working on...

Posted 29 March 2016 - 07:36 AM

The Z film has always been a valuable piece of evidence in the case. Unless I'm overlooking it, can someone take a moment to explain what it the point of this thread? Thank you.

Posted 06 April 2016 - 07:42 PM

Michael, A valuable piece for whom? If you are interested, take the gif and count the total number of frames. Compare it (frame count) to the same segment in the extant Zfilm? Minus your preconceived notion that the extant zfilm is authentic, what major difference is there between the two? chris

Chris,

You can continue to measure distances, create animated GIFs, and use all kinds of mathematical formulas and calculations but it's not going to prove anything. In other words, you're reaching for something that isn't there.

So rather than stay on topic - MATH RULES - or start another thread attempting to prove the Zfilm authentic and present your case... Mike simply states a conclusion for which he only has anecdotal evidence:

So I'm not sure where you're going with this thread. There were no alterations made to the Zapruder film.

Chris actually attempts to explain it to him with no luck at all... A film record of an event has to make sense in the real physical world... the MATH which explains movement over time at speed, and the film MUST MATCH and work in the real world.

What if it doesn't? What if the MATH and the FILM are at such odds as to render the images we see in the film impossible? Either the MATH is wrong or the FILM is wrong.

When the MATH says the limo moves 9/10th of a foot yet the film shows the limo moving 2.4 feet - which is wrong JB and what are we saying?

When the Evidence takes the exact same spot and changes its relative Zfilm frame - what's going on?

When the MATH clearly explains that we see on the film is not possible in the real world which is wrong JB - the MATH or the FILM?

You want the MATH to be wrong so the film can be authentic.

JB,

- did you see the Zfilm between Friday the 22nd and Monday the 25th? if not, you have no idea what was on that film - none - other than what you've heard 3rd hand

- did you know that the FBI had a film prior to LIFE's negotiations (so fri eve)? if not, how do you explain their having a film that night?

- did you know about Max Philips sending a 8mm film to his Chief in DC and the subsequent disappearance of that film that night? if not, how do you know which film that was or what was done with it?

- are you aware that the way in which Philips' note is written it appears there are 4 copies and 1 "master"? If not, how do you explain 0184 missing?

- after that weekend, was the film ever shown publically until 1975? no, it was not... except for that "other" film which a handful of people saw and wrote about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrRbkY9gEnQ

- if the film is authentic where is the original "0183" stamped into it during processing?

- if the film is authentic why does the MATH which proves what we see is not physically possible, work at all?

Agree or disagree LB? If the film was authentic there would be MATH which would EXACTLY explain what we see happening in 3D space via speed, direction, "x, y & z" coordinates so that we could place the limo and JFK precisely where he was at any point in time.

If you disagree then you really have no point in being in this thread - there are thousands of threads at the EF on which you can discuss your thoughts. This thread is the continuation of work started years ago. Start a thread entitled: "The Zfilm is authentic and here's why" and present your case since it has nothing to do with the MATH we are discussing here - yet you wont do that... how come?

You offer some ideas in this thread just above yet for you to accept the Zfilm as a clock of the assassination you MUST assume it is authentic - one does not prove the other and nothing can negate your conclusion... that's a tautology JB, - "the film shows the authentic timing of the shots" & "the timing of the shots shown on this film is authentic" therefore by axiomatic rule the film must be authentic.

Something you have yet to prove other than to offer the equally uninspiring "Why would they need to" argument.

If there were more than 3 shots - which even Mike sees - then the film cannot be an accurate representation of the timing of the shots since only 1 is seen with any certainty while a 2nd can only be inferred. If there were more than 3 shots, and the film doesn't show this - how can it be authentic?

Yes, Connally repeated says it is inconceivable to him that they were hit by the same shot... and they weren't. There was a minimum of 41 frames at 18.3fps for 2 shots to be fired.

When was JFK first hit based on your viewing of the film JB? 190? 207? later?

What's the earliest then JC could have been shot by a single gunman? 231? 248? LIFE/NPIC placed shots at 190, 206, 213, 242, 264 & both put one at 312.

Do you see a shot on the Zfilm at 264? 242? 206 or 213? if not... how are we looking at the same film as was seen that weekend - twice?

How do they miss the shot to JC at 224 to not even consider it as a possibility?

What we SEE on the film does not p[rove its authenticity Jeremy. The movements within the film MUST be representable with MATH or the film is showing us something which is not physically possible, the one thing Redlich was most concerned about in his note to Rankin. ,

the film provided the proof they wanted in the single frames despite how poorly the frames were and how poorly they were reproduced... so let me ask this JB... does the black square which extends beyond the borders of JFK's head (while Jackie's hair stays within the lines) look like a natural occurring object or something added after the fact to hide a hole in JFK's head which everyone at Parkland says was there?

Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital?

Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.

Horne's famous "Hollywood 7" have seen the best version of the film, a 35mm frame by frame copy from which they state that this black square appears to hover over the frame. So in answer to what was altered - any possible image of a hole in the back of his head as opposed to the bogus Bethesda xrays of the front of his skull gone.

================

Now by way of a simple example illustrating that much more than the Zfilm was altered for the story being told.

You've seen the Muchmore film right?

You aware that repeatedly she says she simply did not film the shooting part of the assassination

Mr. DULLES. Do I understand you correctly that Mrs. Muchmore didn’t realize she had taken the later pictures that appear?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. According to her statement, she said after hearing the shots, she panicked, and didn’t take any more pictures.

Mr. DTLLES. You think she did?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. On the film there are pictures.

There being images on the film does not answer the question, does it? The person credited with the film says she did not take it.

Yet as we both know the Muchmore frames are amazingly clear and specifically focused on JFK. Muchmore was not called to testify. She panicked yet was able to shoot an amazing sequence.

So we have the same question... as the camera pans either the limo is in focus or the foreground/background is and the limo is blurred.... If you've seen the actual Muchmore film you see the camera moving wildly around during this sequence yet we have this: look to me as if everything in that frame is in focus...

like Z303 where in 302 the background is blurred due to camera movement, 303 is all in the same focus

CE884 begins with Z161 at station 3+29.2 which was changed from the original survey designation of Z168 for no apparent reason other than to fix some sort of alignment/timing problem. JB - we agree that the limo could not occupy the same location at 2 different times unless the limo was not moving or the FBI (Shaneyfelt) needed to deal with a reality problem. They chose to deal with the real problem by simply changing the frames on which the limo reaches these landmarks pushing 168 back to 161, and 171 back to 166.

Mr. SPECTER. What was the starting position of the car at the most easterly position on Elm Street, immediately after turning off Houston Street?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. The first position we established that morning was frame 161.

Mr. SPECTER. Was there not a position established prior in sequence to frame 161, specifically that designated as position A?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That was actually established later. But the first one to be actually located was 161. And we went back later and positioned point A.

Mr. SPECTER. Well, let’s start with the position which is the most easterly point on Elm Street, which I believe would be position A, would it not?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

There are relationships at work here that you could take the time to understand before you decide it has no bearing... or you could just leave well enough alone and work out your own conclusions. Why you feel this thread and our work has any negative bearing on you and yours is beyond me. You offer nothing but accepted WCR BS as your supporting evidence and seem not to realize how the world worked in 1963.

you wrote:

"either the bulk of the photographic record, including the Zapruder film, has been tampered with, or the bulk of the photographic record, including the Zapruder film, is authentic. Personally, I'd go for the latter option."

"Going for" one or the other ought to be based on something beyond your gut feelings, no? Ask Gayle Nix what happened (she has her own site about her dad's missing film)... or Mary Muchmore's claim of not filming or Zapruder's of filming the entire turn "as the motorcade came in".

At no point does a "flurry of shots" appear on the film, but what does show is the extreme slowing of the limo as it approaches z300, the impossibility of foreground, background and subject all in focus at 303. The amazingly fast head snap of Greer at 303-304 (as if frames were removed at between 303 and 304 to allow the frame to be in focus and Greer to move his head so fast when the next frame comes) And then again at 316.

The thread is about how MATH proves the Zfilm altered Jeremy. You and others may disagree with it or even hate what it suggests... if you are courteous enough to ask "Pardon me" it is just as courteous to allow those who wish to discuss the topic to do so without off topic interjection...

Fair?

Edited July 12, 2016 by David Josephs

[Chris Davidson]

If it helps.

Remember, shot#1 below does not refer to extant z207 location (JFK in limo), it would be more like extant z218(JFK in limo) if a frame number was assigned to it using CE884 data.

The hypotenuse (or slant distance as Simmons refers to it as) for shot#1below is 184ft, not the175ft Simmon's was shooting at.

Why is this important?

We know that sometime during or quite shortly after the Time-Life investigation ( circa week of Nov 25,1963) the slant distance of 175ft for extant z207 was determined by Robert West.

If you refer back to CE560(date of Mar 27,1964), you'll see that the first shot distance was for a slant distance of 175ft.

Look a little closer, and you see Frazier was trying to lead the target .56ft (Added on edit: vertical lead). (Ridiculous, I've previously shown why in terms of ballistic calculations and limo speed).

.56ft x 18.3ft(vertical/horizontal conversion for Elm St slope) = 10.24ft

Extant z207 = Station# 3+71.1 + 10.24ft = Station # 3+81.34 = Shot #1(slant distance of 184ft location (approx extant z218) on SS/FBI survey plat of Dec 5,1963/Feb 1964).

Edited July 13, 2016 by Chris Davidson

[David Josephs]

Thanks Chris - that makes sense.

Does any of this data go as far as saying which shot hits Connally? It appears that all the 207 work is based on JFK's position and not JC.

Does any of the math describe a shot to JC as you see it?

[Chris Davidson]

Connally? - Hypothetical in progress.

I wish I knew from what source Mandel got his frame count. Obviously haven't been successful in that endeavor.

As you view this graphic, think about Mandel's description of how many frames after the 170ft shot, does the next shot occur.

Now, think of that in terms of a 48fps film and convert it to 18.3fps, while using extant z207 as the frame count for the first shot.

What extant zframe would Mandel's second shot arrive at?

Hint!!! Look at Shaw's testimony.

The distance of 199ft is not significant, the angle is.

The photo is from the 6th floor West window. Move up to the rooftop from there and what does Connally look like at z236ish.

P.S. A bigger version of the graphic is attached because of the small text.

[David Josephs]

Do you think Mandel simply took it from this CIA450 NPIC info and just worked backward?

[Chris Davidson]

That would make perfect sense. But, "Why would there be a reference to Life Magazine results if the NPIC notes were created first? Or were they? I assumed NPIC notes were created on the immediate weekend after the assassination.

The chicken or the egg.

Added on edit: Not by Brugioni's team, at least as far as he knew.

Looking at the one NPIC note labeled " Based on 18FPS as reported in Life Magazine" I believe it was created after the Dec 6 article appeared.

Which leads back to what film was Mandel viewing while counting frames? Or who was feeding him this part of the info?

Edited July 14, 2016 by Chris Davidson

[David Josephs]

I would imagine that LIFE determined these frames well before Dec 6, especially since Luce was in on it, I imagine it is not too much of a stretch to see the Mr. Smiths coming to NPIC also being in contact with LIFE so the representation of Oswald's shots make sense. As we both know, Z190 hitting JFK requires a delayed reaction of quite some time, at least until around 207 when another shot appears to hit JFK in the back pushing him up and forward.

We also know that LIFE's 2nd shot at z264 is a complete fabrication.

If you read thru Horne's work at the link, the film seems to have been processed in Chicago for the reworked Nov 29 issue, not Dec 6. I'd guess that Luce, Chicago and the FBI/SS were communicating that eve - you?

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/05/douglas-p-horne/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-filmsalteration/

The Four Briefing Board Panels at NARA are examined: Both McMahon and Hunter agreed that the prints mounted on the four briefing board panels in the National Archives were indeed the prints they made the night of their u201CNPIC event.u201D Neither man had seen the completed briefing boards before, but they both agreed that the 28 prints mounted on the four panels were the prints they had made. McMahon stated that the prints had been trimmed down to a slightly smaller size from what had been printed. McMahon also noted, with dispassionate professional interest, that the prints had deteriorated badly over time, due to the instability of the dyes. When McMahon examined the 28 prints mounted on the four panels, he immediately expressed the opinion that some of the prints they had made were missing from the briefing boards, and had not been used — most likely additional views of the limousine before it went behind the Stemmons Freeway sign, and additional views of Clint Hill mounting the vehicle after the head explosion. Neither McMahon nor Hunter had any direct or indirect knowledge of how the four briefing board panels were used. McMahon could only speculate that they may have been used to brief the Warren Commission, but this was not something told to him by Bill Smith; indeed, there was no Warren Commission yet created when Bill Smith visited NPIC

The five pages of NPIC u201Cworking notes are examined: Neither McMahon nor Hunter had seen four of the five pages of notes that are found in Flat 90A at the Archives, along with the four briefing board panels. (Specifically, they said they had never seen the three-page shot and timing analysis, nor the typewritten summary of briefing board panel contents.) The one page that they both agreed contained their handwriting was the half-sheet with writing on both sides. Of particular interest to McMahon was the back side of the half sheet, which contains the following pencil notations: shoot internegs, one-and-a-half hr; proc and dry internegs, two hr; print test, one hr; make three prints (each), one hr; proc and dry prints, one-and-a-half hr; and the total is listed as seven hrs. McMahon stated with assurance that these notations were in his handwriting; and that they referred to the time required to create the internegatives from the Zapruder film frames, and to make the contact prints.

Furthermore, he (DINO) said the Chead explosionu201D depicted in the Zapruder film today is too small in size, and too low in the frame, to be the same graphic depiction he recalls witnessing in the Zapruder film on Saturday, November 23rd, 1963 at NPIC. Mr. Brugioni viewed the Zapruder film as a motion picture several times during the HD video interview I conducted with him on July 9, 2011 — using the 1998 MPI DVD product, Image of an Assassination, made by the LMH Co. in 1997 from the film in the National Archives — and reiterated those comments that he made on April 28th to Peter Janney, insisting that something was missing from the film in the National Archives today. While viewing the video on July 9, 2011, Mr. Brugioni also stated that the head explosion he viewed was a large white cloud that surrounded President Kennedy's head, and was not pink or red, as shown in the extant Zapruder film. The words below are excerpted from Dino Brugioni's April 28, 2011 interview with Peter Janney, as he recounted what he recalled seeing when he watched the head explosion in the Zapruder film on 11/23/63:

u201C…I remember all of us being shocked…it was straight up [gesturing high above his own head]…in the sky…There should have been more than one frame…I thought the spray was, say, three or four feet from his head…what I saw was more than that [than frame 313 in today's film]…it wasn't low [as in frame 313], it was high…there was more than that in the original…It was way high off of his head…and I can't imagine that there would only be one frame. What I saw was more than you have there [in frame 313]. [17] [emphasis as spoken]

The pages of CIA450 from NPIC were created in relation to these photos, frame #'s and timing.

I would venture to say that even though LIFE publishes on Dec 6, the

[Chris Davidson]

David,

74 frames from extant z207(slant distance 175ft), not z190, = extant z281 Yes, z264 is B.S.

Shaneyfelt measuring back 25ft from extant 313 headshot via the SS/FBI plat of elevations 418.35 - (419.72 labeled shot #2)= 1.37ft x 18.3 = 25.07ft

Those elevations = station# 4+66.7(according to Tom P) - 25ft = station# 4+41.7 = extant z281 or extremely close to.

This puts you directly in Brehm territory.

chris

Edited July 14, 2016 by Chris Davidson

[Chris Davidson]

As you view this graphic, think about Mandel's description of how many frames after the 170ft shot, does the next shot occur.

Now, think of that in terms of a 48fps film and convert it to 18.3fps, while using extant z207 as the frame count for the first shot.

What extant zframe would Mandel's second shot arrive at?

The conversion would look like this:

74/48 = 1.54 sec x 18.3fps = 28.2 frames + extant z207 = extant z235/236 = Connally shot according to Shaw's vague trajectory testimony.

[Chris Davidson]

To address the distance element of the previous posting there are entries for extant z207 and z235.

z207-z235 distance via CE884 = 25.7ft

25.7ft / 1.54 sec = 16.68ft per sec = 11.35mph

Was Mandel looking at (or being fed) a 48fps version or partial thereof, counting frames under the impression it was a 18fps version?

Remember, there supposedly wasn't an official frame count for the extant film until Shaneyfelt in late Jan of 1964.

[Chris Davidson]

Furthermore, he (DINO) said the Chead explosionu201D depicted in the Zapruder film today is too small in size, and too low in the frame, to be the same graphic depiction he recalls witnessing in the Zapruder film on Saturday, November 23rd, 1963 at NPIC. Mr. Brugioni viewed the Zapruder film as a motion picture several times during the HD video interview I conducted with him on July 9, 2011 — using the 1998 MPI DVD product, Image of an Assassination, made by the LMH Co. in 1997 from the film in the National Archives — and reiterated those comments that he made on April 28th to Peter Janney, insisting that something was missing from the film in the National Archives today. While viewing the video on July 9, 2011, Mr. Brugioni also stated that the head explosion he viewed was a large white cloud that surrounded President Kennedy's head, and was not pink or red, as shown in the extant Zapruder film. The words below are excerpted from Dino Brugioni's April 28, 2011 interview with Peter Janney, as he recounted what he recalled seeing when he watched the head explosion in the Zapruder film on 11/23/63:

u201C…I remember all of us being shocked…it was straight up [gesturing high above his own head]…in the sky…There should have been more than one frame…I thought the spray was, say, three or four feet from his head…what I saw was more than that [than frame 313 in today's film]…it wasn't low [as in frame 313], it was high…there was more than that in the original…It was way high off of his head…and I can't imagine that there would only be one frame. What I saw was more than you have there [in frame 313]. [17] [emphasis as spoken]

I think Dino pretty much conveys what Breneman was expressing in his article by Marrs.

According to Breneman, he was looking at frames for surveying purposes during the Time-Life investigation starting Nov25,1963.

At least an agreement on missing frames.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Thanks for your reply, David. There are two points I'd like to make. Firstly, the default position with any item of physical evidence has to be that it is authentic. It's up to those who allege fraud to prove their case. That certainly hasn't happened here, since no-one has been able to show a single inconsistency between the Zapruder film and the rest of the photographic evidence that doesn't have a straightforward explanation.

The second point is to do with the use of witness testimony to support allegations of fraud. Over the years, many examples have been cited of witness statements that contradict what is shown in the Zapruder film and in other parts of the photographic record. You yourself mention Marie Muchmore, who apparently claimed not to have captured the shooting, although her film clearly contains several frames taken during the shooting. Earlier, you mentioned Officer Chaney, who claimed to have driven his motorcycle in a way that contradicts what is shown in the Zapruder film.

How are we to interpret these contradictions? Given what is commonly accepted about the fallibility of human memory, the obvious interpretation is that the witnesses were mistaken. It's the principle of Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is the most rational explanation. On the one hand, a witness remembered wrongly; on the other hand, a large amount of work was undertaken in altering a still photograph (such as Altgens 6), or an even larger amount of work was undertaken in altering a home movie.

It's only when a photograph or film or other item of physical evidence has already been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be inauthentic, a standard that hasn't even been approached in the case of the Zapruder film, that you should assume that any contradictory statements by witnesses are accurate. To avoid confusion, by 'statement' I'm referring to what a witness actually said, rather than what he or she was reported in a written document to have said.

Years ago, there was a perfect example of the problems that arise when too much trust is placed in witness statements. In James Fetzer's Murder in Dealey Plaza (on pp.6-7 of the colour insert after p.324), Jack White wrote that "Mary Moorman and her friend Jean Hill have consistently maintained that they stepped off the curb and into the street to take this photo [Moorman's famous Polaroid, taken immediately after the fatal head shot] ... This puzzled me, since the Zapruder film shows them on the grass, about 2 feet south of the curb." The author then conducted an experiment, taking measurements which led him to conclude that "Mary stepped off the curb to take the photo. Thus, the Z-film is faked."

Unfortunately for the credibility of this theory, Moorman is shown standing on the grass not only in the Zapruder film but also in the Muchmore and Nix films. If we claim that the Bad Guys faked this part of the Zapruder film, we are forced to claim that they also faked the other two films, and we've crossed the border into tin-foil hat territory. You may not be surprised to learn that the 'Moorman in the street' theory was invented by someone who apparently took seriously the idea that the moon landings were faked.

Three years later, Fetzer's The Great Zapruder Film Hoax devoted two whole chapters to what it called "the Moorman controversy." A team of researchers, all of them clever people with lots of letters after their names, went to Dealey Plaza and took more measurements, which provided "powerful evidence that Mary was in the street", in Professor Fetzer's words (p.239).

As it turned out, the measurements were inaccurate (see http://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_-_part_2.html for an illustrated account). More accurate measurements showed that Mary Moorman was actually standing exactly where the Zapruder, Muchmore and Nix films show her to be standing. It was no longer necessary to claim that all three films were faked, and we could put our tin-foil hats away.

In this case, the rational interpretation was shown to be correct: Mary Moorman, like everyone else, had a less than perfect memory. Interestingly, her official statement on the day of the assassination, which is actually reproduced on p.276 of The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, begins with the words "Mrs Jean Hill and I were standing on the grass ...".

I'm sure you'll agree with me that Professor Fetzer is the perfect figurehead for the 'Zapruder film is fake' community. But even professors make mistakes sometimes. So eager were the researchers to find a conspiracy everywhere they looked, it didn't occur to them to ask why on earth the Bad Guys should have wanted to transplant Mary Moorman and Jean Hill from the street onto the grass. Not only would it give the game away, but it must have generated extra work when fabricating the film. This failure to apply the principle of Occam's Razor caused yet another 'Zapruder film is fake' claim to bite the dust.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

I've just read through your reply again, and one more point stands out. You write:

If there were more than 3 shots - which even Mike sees - then the film cannot be an accurate representation of the timing of the shots since only 1 is seen with any certainty while a 2nd can only be inferred. If there were more than 3 shots, and the film doesn't show this - how can it be authentic?

The standard interpretation is that the film contains evidence for at least three shots:

1. Kennedy is clearly reacting to at least one shot as he emerges from behind the road sign at frames 224 onward;
2. The obvious head shot at frame 313;
3. Connally's reaction at around frame 238, which some people dispute but which Connally himself took as evidence of a shot.

That's good evidence for at least three shots, to which we can add one that missed and hit James Tague, which the Zapruder film can't be expected to show.

The Zapruder film is not inconsistent with at least four shots. Those incompetent Bad Guys messed up again!

(Edit: corrected a typo - '238' was originally '338'.)

Edited July 19, 2016 by Jeremy Bojczuk