David Josephs

IYHO, no doubt.  Here's the "opinion" of his brother

Mr. JENNER - I show you an exhibit, a series of exhibits, first Commission Exhibit No. 281 and Exhibit No. 282 being some spread pages of an issue of Life magazine of February 21, 1964. I direct your attention first to the lower lefthand spread at .the bottom of the page. Do you recognize the area shown there? 
Mr. PIC - No, sir. 
Mr. JENNER - Do you see somebody in that picture that appears to be your brother? 
Mr. PIC - This one here with the arrow. 
Mr. JENNER - The one that has the printed arrow? 
Mr. PIC - That is correct, sir. 
Mr. JENNER - And you recognize that as your brother? 
Mr. PIC - Because they say so, sir. 
Mr. JENNER - Please, I don't want you to say-- 
Mr. PIC - No; I couldn't recognize that. 
Mr. JENNER - Because this magazine says that it is. 
Mr. PIC - No, sir; I couldn't recognize him from that picture. 
Mr. JENNER - You don't recognize anybody else in the picture after studying it that appears to be your brother? When I say your brother now, I am talking about Lee. 
Mr. PIC - No, sir. 

Mr. JENNER - Then right below that is a picture of a young man standing in front of an iron fence, which appears to be probably at a zoo. Do you recognize that? 
Mr. PIC - Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald. 
Mr. JENNER - That young fellow is shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City? 
Mr. PIC - No, sir. 
Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 284 do you recognize anybody in that picture that appears to be Lee Oswald? 
Mr. PIC - No, sir. 

The image on the right is Oswald in Oct 6th grade.  The boy at the zoo is taken 18 months later in Aug after his 7th grade in NYC.
How does a 5'4" 115lb incoming 7th grader become a 4'10" 90lb kid 10 months later?

Mr. JENNER - Exhibit No. 287 is two figures, taking them from top to bottom and in the lower right-hand corner, do you recognize those? 
Mr. PIC - No, sir; I don't. 
Mr. JENNER - Neither one of them? 
Mr. PIC - No, sir. The lower one appears to me to look like Robert rather than Lee. The upper one, unless they tell me that, I would never guess that that would be Lee, sir. 
Mr. JENNER - All right. Exhibit No. 288, there is ill the lower left-hand corner, there is a reproduction of a service card and a reproduction, also, of a photograph with the head of a man. Do you recognize that? 
Mr. PIC - That looks to me approximately how Lee Oswald looked when I seen him Thanksgiving 1962. 
Mr. JENNER - Directing your attention to Exhibit, Commission Exhibit No. 289, do you recognize any of the servicemen shown in that picture as your brother Lee? 
Mr. PIC - No, sir; I do not recognize them. 
Mr. JENNER - Exhibit No. 290, the lower left-hand corner there is a photograph of a young lady and a young man. Do you recognize either of those persons? 
Mr. PIC - He appears to me as Lee Harvey Oswald in 1962 when I seen him. 

On 12/16/2016 at 4:12 PM, Thomas Graves said:

Dear David,

The reason none of the young men / boys whose photos you posted are Robert E. Webster is because they're all Lee Harvey Oswald at different ages, you know, some showing him with baby fat, and others showing him with (gasp) muscles from his being in the Marine Corps (where they feed you well and make you do lots and lots push ups and chin-ups and that sort of thing), etc.

--  Grave

 

The photos of the Marines in uniform are taken less than 6 months apart

The attached shows Oswald in images taken 1 week apart as well as the large necked Lee and the scrawny Harvey 10 months apart.

On 12/16/2016 at 3:49 PM, Michael Walton said:

I've always been just a little leery about the Oswald double theory but the DJ photo, for me, is really starting to make me change my mind.  Every time I look at that, my mind struggles with it's got to be one person vs. the soldier on the right, though looking a lot like the arrested LHO on the left, does have different features.  The photo in upper left with marina, too, does look quite different than the one on the right.

When I found this photo a few year ago, it, too, got me thinking about this.  This look alike does look more like the one on the right, the stockier Oswald one than the arrested one:

What many seem to forget is we are not talking about a single image or a single item of evidence.

In the work I did on Mexico City I start with the Summer of 1963.  If Tommy can address the multiple instances of Ruby and Lee being together in Dallas at the same time Harvey and Family is in New Orleans... have at it.

Additionally, when John Ely was tasked with compiling Oswald's bio, his primary source up to March 20, 1964 was LIFE magazine as he mentions in the memo to Leibeler followed by his note to Jenner after reviewing the info.

The fact the DoD claims he never actually went to Taiwan, Ping Tung while not only his Marine history puts him there but his CO at the time Donovan put him there.  This is also where a fellow marine was shot.  Oswald also appears on the Unit Diary for Ping Tung Oct 6, 1958.

On the evening of October 4th Harvey Oswald was assigned to guard duty at
Ping Tung. About midnight, Lieutenant Charles R. Rhodes (Lake City, SC) heard four
or five rifle shots coming from the direction of the position that Oswald was guarding.
He drew his .45 automatic and ran toward the clump of trees to see what had happened.
Lieutenant Rhodes found (Harvey) Oswald slumped against a tree, visibly shaking and
crying while holding his M-1 rifle across his lap.
Oswald told Rhodes that hesaw men in the woods, challenged them, and then
started shooting. Rhodes put his arm around Oswald's shoulder and slowly walked him
back to his tent. Rhodes remembered, "He (Oswald) kept saying he just couldn't bear
being on guard duty." Rhodes reported the incident to his commanding officer and
Oswald was allegedly sent to Japan for "medical treatment" two days later (Oct 6) by
military plane. 51 On October 6, Harvey Oswald and Peter Cassisi are listed on Marine
Corps Unit Diary #158-58 at Ping-Tung (North Taiwan).

(H&L-John Armstrong)

On 12/16/2016 at 1:59 PM, Thomas Graves said:

Dear Joseph,

Nope.  You got it wrong, again.

It was Robert Webster who was 5' 10" and weighed 165 lbs.  You know, the former Air Force guy who showed up in Moscow the same week as Lee Harvey Oswald, who facially resembled Oswald, and whose biometrics were "inherited" by Oswald, courtesy of FBI agent Fain's attributing them source-wise to Marguerite Oswald and his inserting them into his early 1960 "interview" of her (which "information", btw, quickly made its way to CIA's Russia Division and was, there, incorporated by Bill Bright into CIA's computerized Biological Registry)?

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret_Chapter1.html

--  Tommy

Dear Tommy,

Is it really that hard to spell my name correctly - it appears right there on the page...  

Regarding the two men in the image I posted... they are both referred to as Lee Harvey Oswald.  
Neither one is Robert Webster.

Lee Oswald was discharged in March 1959 - Harvey in September.
Santa Ana MCAB and El Toro MCAS are 2 different bases ... they are close to each other, but not that close.

Can you somehow relate Robert Webster to the image I posted, the 2 bases in CA and Gorsky's statements?

The man Ruby killed was never in Mexico City

Every item of "evidence" getting him there and back was fabricated for that singular purpose.

Sylvia Odio and her sister could not have been more plain about who they saw - why else bury her story on 2 pages in the WCR with the final sentence being that it could not have been Oswald as he was en route to and/or in Mexico City. (p322 WCR http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0173b.htm )

btw - if you want to see the Two Oswalds...  here you go.  One man is 5'10" 165lbs while the other is 5'8" 135lbs.  The shoulders give it away.

DJ

Quote

Never forget that the whole Files story came about due to a tip from an FBI agent

As if this was some sort of ringing endorsement for truth and honesty....   Virtually every bit of deception that occurs in this case was at the hands of the FBI...

Mr. Files lied as part of his profession.  Day in and Day out...  a xxxx.  

Between he and the FBI in this case, sadly, he is probably a more reliable source.   

Quote

This is a very interesting anomaly that I want to spend more time studying. It's hard to believe that the surveyors could have been so far off in their measurements.

On the other hand, one has to wonder how the transition was made between Z161-166, where no frames are removed in the extant film, to elsewhere where frames were presumably removed. First, how was a smooth transition made? And second, why does the surveyors' data not conflict with what we see in the film. It seems like it should conflict all over the place. Yet, if I recall correctly, Chris points out just a small number of conflicts. Correct me if I am wrong.

The surveyors were not off, the FBI, Shaneyfelt, changed the data.

I suggest you start with the idea that the frames and the numbers were an FBI creation.  18.3fps another FBI creation.  All measurements to the 6th floor window only... FBI

So let's just say we have a film that seems to stop and start without the tell-tale signs at z133.. z133 then is the 1st frame of the motorcade, the first frame with JFK...

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Since it was not practical to stop the projector when using the original of the Zapruder film, because of the possibility of damage to the film, Mr. Orth volunteered to prepare 35-mm. color slides directly from the original movie of all of the pertinent frames of the assassination which were determined to be frames 171 through 434. 

Mr. SPECTER. Starting with what frame number? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Starting with frame 171, going through frame 334. 
Mr. SPECTER. And why did you start with frame 171? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is the frame that the slides start from. This was an arbitrary frame number that was decided on as being far enough back to include the area that we wanted to study

By using averages the FBI was able to "smooth out" the movements (to match the smooth movement seen in the film) which the MATH shows goes from 2.24mph to 18mph.  Let me be clear as well... the 48fps original was altered and re-shot on the Zapruder camera after removing an AVERAGE of 48/18.3 = 2.24 frames for every 3 original frames.   

What this suggests to me is z133 was z161 with frames between 132-160 removed changing the original z161 now z133...  162 x 3 = 486 = total # of frames.  The film was broken into thirds... 1-161, 162 - 324, 325-486 with all the necessary info between 162-324...  When we take the 10 frames from 171-334 (which moves things up Elm 10.2') we get 161-324... and the charade begins...  by using averages the FBI was able to remove movement, time and distance from the Zfilm with very few saeeing how it was done...

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; because we were able to determine the speed of the camera, and thereby accurately determine the length of time it takes for a specific number of frames to run through the camera at this 18.3 frames per second, and having located these frame positions in the street, we took the farthest distance point we had in the Zapruder film which was frame 161 through frame 313. This was found to run elapsed time from the film standpoint which runs at 18.3 frames a second, runs for a total of 8.3 seconds. 

Mr. SPECTER. Will you take the first point Mr. Dulles has referred to and mark it as point X. I think we already have some letter designations in the early part of the alphabet. 
Mr. McCLOY. Where is that point? What significance is that point? The first point? 
Mr. SPECTER. This frame 161. 
Mr. McCLOY. Yes. 
Mr. SPECTER. Is the first frame we have on the Zapruder film. 

After having done quite a bit of work on WCD298 and the surveys/reenactments I come to discover that the shot Tom here talks about at 4+96 as the "real" headshot/final shot was created by the FBI/SS to account for 3 shots being fired...

For most of us,we understand that more than 3 shots were fired and hit the occupants of the limo but the "story" would be 3 shots = 3 hits... FBI report WCD1 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10402#relPageId=8&tab=page

"2 shots hit JFK, 1 shot hit JC" and since there was no place for shots too close together, and no place to fit in a shot at the top of Elm (which, imo was the reason for the 132/133 splice) so they created a shot further down Elm to account for 3 but then had surveyor WEST change that from 3 to 2 shots by dropping the 4+96 shot...

So while I originally agreed with Tom about this shot, I've come to understand what the FBI was doing. So if anyone knows: When was the 1st CE884 with frames 168 and 171 to start, changed to the existing CE884 starting with 161-166 starting and covering the exact same distance as 168-171...

The Evidence IS the Conspiracy - and it's not any more plain to see than in the evidence that supposedly represents the Zfilm...

The reenactment photo below isrepresenting POS A / CE886 which was nowhere near the path we see the cars when z133 pops up... and the rest of the cars turn onto Elm.

Shaneyfelt says that STATION C is the spot where the limo "would" have turned..

CE886 is POS A which is described as the first place a shooter in the TSBD 6th floor window could see the mark on the back of the JFK "stand-in". (which btw was 10" too high. 10" in vertical height on Elm is equal to 15.25 feet horizontal.

Except CE884 never made the adjustment for that 15 feet...

Why do you suppose they would include the photo and statement about POS A and the line of sight from the "shooter" if the existing zfilm shows the cars lined up behind the limo at z133?

Additionally, from z1-132 you will see the far left side motorcyclist disappear into the corner and emerge at the same spot as POS A. It takes him 80 frames to go from disappearing to reemerging... then it cuts to 133.

So why include POS A? Because it appears very likely that the limo did indeed make the turn as I show down below and is the reason for the 132-133 splice, and why Zapruder claims he never did stop filming. Station C can work for both turns as long as the assumption isn't that they are in a straight line but 2 sides of a triangle.

Mr. TRULY. That is right.
And the President's car following close behind came along at an average speed of 10 or 15 miles an hour. It wasn't that much, because they were getting ready to turn. And the driver of the Presidential car swung out too far to the right, and he came almost within an inch of running into this little abutment here, between Elm and the Parkway. And he slowed down perceptibly and pulled back to the left to get over into the middle lane of the parkway. Not being familiar with the street, he came too far out this way when he made his turn.
Mr. BELIN. He came too far to the north before he made his curve, and as he curved--as he made his left turn from Houston onto the street leading to the expressway, he almost hit this north curb?
Mr. TRULY. That is right. Just before he got to it, he had to almost stop, to pull over to the left.
If he had maintained his speed, he would probably have hit this little section here.

Malcolm.E.Barker Slide compilation. 24/5/64

Click on image to view full size:



Quote:

Photographic slide of the FBI/Secret Service reenactment of the Kennedy assassination in Dealey Plaza on May 24, 1964. The car representing the president's limousine heads west on Elm Street, toward the triple underpass.

The car used to represent the president's limousine in the reenactment was actually the Secret Service car that had been directly behind the presidential limousine in the motorcade on November 22, 1963.

The driver in this picture, Secret Service agent George Hickey, rode in the follow-up car at the time of the assassination.

The north side of Dealey Plaza is visible to the right. Signs directing traffic to Stemmons Freeway and other highway signs line the right side of the road.

Chris.

Looking at Altgens and Bothun i only see 4 -motorcycles. ?

Altgens 2 Large

Bothun 2

Robin,

Take a look at the Muchmore video I posted.

5 cycles come around the Main/ Houston St. corner.

The first set is 3, the second set is 2.

What happens to 2 of the 5 from Houston onto Elm.

I don't know. I know of no footage that shows it.

When she says one kept going straight down Houston, how do we know she is talking about 1 of 3 in the front pack(seen on Z) and not 1 of 2 from the trailing pack?

If we can't account for all 5 cycles on Houston, how can her description of this segment be considered true or false. We need more proof.

This is all that I'm referring to.

chris

The Oliver video does not play any longer... yet the discussion of motorcycles got me wondering.

the Lawrence Exhibits outline the motorcade. Testimony from Brewer, one of the 5 in front of the lead car and NOT part of the 3 motorcycles which followed the Advance Cars.

He says he turned onto Houston and then Elm and down to the Advance Bikes leaving the three we see in McIntyre and in frame 20 of the Zfilm.

Sadly I don't know exactly what Beverly said about the motorcycles yet that fact that 2 of the bikes jumped ahead to catch the Advance Cars and deal with Stemmons could confuse anyone.

There is nothing from Freeman that I have found so far... not even an entry in the radio logs... Need to find out a bit more about Freeman...

DJ

Mr. BELIN. Let me try and get a sketch. Officer, I just stepped out of the room to come back in and bring a map of Dallas, which I believe is similar to Commission's Exhibit 371, which I am going to mark here Deposition Exhibit A, which we will call It E.D. Brewer deposition Exhibit A. I have it marked in red pencil here, and on this map of Dallas, on one side of it in one corner of it is a section called, Downtown Dallas, and this Is towards the top of the reverse side of the map.

I am going to ask you to look at this map. You see the place here, it looks like Dealey Plaza, Main Street runs into that, which is Houston, then you turned north on Houston and Elm, and then you take Elm?

Mr. BREWER. Left on Elm.

Mr. BELIN. Left on Elm. You went under the railroad underpass there, which appears to be in green on the map, is that correct?

Mr. BREWER. Yea, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Then I am going to ask you to take a pencil or a ball point pen, and you might just follow the route that you took. Just mark it parallel to whatever street you took to where you ended up.

Mr. BREWER. (Marks on map.)

Down Elm under the railroad tracks to Stemmons, under Stemmons to the right, headed north parallel to Stemmons on that entranceway, under that T & p Railroad, and onto Stemmons Expressway, and Just north of the T & P Railroad.

Mr. BELIN. Now is that where you stopped your motorcycle?

Mr. BREWER. Yes, sir.

I'm kinda surprised - introducing a photo of Lee standing in the same position as the BYP composite of Harvey leads to an interesting observation, imo...

The shadows fall in the same place at the same angle from the body for both images yet the nose shadow on Lee in the Philippines matches the body shadow while the nose shadow in the BYP does not...

Furthermore, when you take the 133-C image of Oswald and put it back into the ghosted image found at DPD you get a sense of how rotated the images really are...

How again did they know to put Det Brown into the 133-C position on Nov 29th when that image was unknown until 1977?

My bad Sandy... I must have you mixed up with someone else...

Terribly sorry. As I look back over the thread, it was someone else I had in my mind...

Again, sorry for the old and senile curmudgeon in me coming out... Let me address your comments as best I can although a careful reading of the thread with pencil and paper in hand is the best advice.

Sandy Larsen said:

I didn't follow this thread because, as far as I could tell, there was no explanation as to what was being done or what the goal was.

Now that it is completed, maybe somebody could summarize what the goal of the thread was, what if anything was learned or proved, and any other useful information.

Please follow...

Unlike you, we understand that what is now in 9 pieces in the Archives does not represent what happened in DP on 11/22

Also unlike you, we see the evidence offered to explain what transpired on Elm as a thinly veiled attempt to push a square peg into a round hole.

No, not unlike me. I'm an alterationist. I believe the rear head wound has been hidden. I also believe that, if there are numerous witnesses who stated that the limo came to a stop or near stop, then that is what happened, and it has been obscured as well. I don't believe in mass hallucinations.

No matter where you are in the world, Time X Speed = Distance, and therefore: Time / Distance = Speed, Time / Distance = Speed, & Distance / Speed = Time (basic algebra)

This thread proves the FBI and SS used math to recreate the events in the form of evidence, then made sure the public did not see the film as a film for 13 years.

This thread was also able to determine that certain unaltered frame sequences were shot at 48 frames per second or Slow Motion. In turn, to change 48fps to 18.3fps we need to remove almost 2/3rds of the frames. A full 2/3 and we'd have a 16fps final film.

Let me make sure I understand this. Are you saying that the extant z-film has sections that were recorded at 48 fps, and that we need to remove almost 2/3 of the frames in these sections to see the true speed of the recorded action?

If that's true, and we remove the extra frames, then the limo (and everything else) will speed up in those particular sections of the film.

If I'm understanding you correctly, please tell me which sections should have frames removed. Did you, or Chris, or anybody else make an animated GIF with frames removed so that we can see the true speeds?

The extra frames had already been removed Sandy. The in camera original is shot either completely or in sections at 48fps which creates 3 times as many frames as a 16fps film. Except the alteration did not remove exactly 2/3 of the frames but a little short of that resulting in a higher frame count per second than that camera operates normally... 18.3 (it also relates to the 18.3:1 ration of the incline of Elm - in the course of a second the limo travels 18.3 feet in 18.3 frames is we accept the speeds offered)

As you say, if the limo did stop, which I too believe happened, let's say it was a 1 second stop then go... if 48 frames are taken of that 1 second virtually all of these frames must go away, but it is still only 1 second of time. By choosing the right frames to leave in we get the 302-303 Greer head-turn while both foreground and background are in focus... the limo must have been moving extremely slowly at this point. The same thing happens at 316-317 and again in the 340-350 range.

It is claimed that 19 feet of film was run off at Kodak.. there is only 25-27 feet of usable film in the 30 foot roll and he filmed the Hesters by the pergola on side B before the motorcade.

Using 168-171 changed to 161-166 we get an idea of what is happening. The film shows the limo moving at a constant rate of speed prior to the Stemmons sign.

David, I'm having a tough time following you. Because you aren't being specific enough. For example, you say, "Using 168-171 changed to 161-166." I don't know if the extant film as we see it has the 168-171 or 161-166. The latter range (161-166) has more frames than the former. I assume that somebody removes frames and doesn't add new ones, which if true would mean that the original frame numbers were 161-166, and that somebody removes some frames, which results in the 168-171 range of frames. Okay. But if so, who are you saying removes the frames from the 161-166 set? The conspirators have done it? Or we need to do it ourselves, in order to see the limo etc. moving at the correct, faster speed?

You need to say things precisely when speaking to those who aren't familiar with the subject matter.

Ok... let's try it this way. (Sandy, I have to assume you've read thru the thread and are aware of CE884, the changed legend that Leo Gauthier sealed in a canister and presented to the WCR as evidence. CE884 is the WHITE version of the legend, the original legend is that orange color and replaces some of the key data: Surveyor WEST places a 9/10th of a foot difference between frames 161 and 166. I forget which post but Chris shows how those 5 frames equate to 5 continuous 48fps frames. I actually had it backward in my explanation. This is the equation and the link:

15.116' is the distance from the front of the limo to JFK in the limo and there are 12 frames between 154-166 as the gif shows
This means the limo moves 1.25966' per frame. Now, at 18.3 fps the limo travels 1.25966 x 18.3 = 23.05 feet per second between 154-166
If that 23.05' was filmed at 48fps 23.05' / 48 frames = .48 foot per frame x 5 frames from 161-166 = 2.4 feet. 2.4 feet is the distance between JFK and JC as shown in post #5
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22692&page=1#entry326132

Except in the original survey, 168-171 covered 9/10ths of a foot for a limo speed of 2.24mph..

171-185 comes to 17mph.. in less than a second the car accelerated from 2.2mph to 17mph? ....

Since I'm not following you, I can't make any judgement regarding this. It certainly would be interesting to see an instantaneous jump in speed from 2.24 to 17 mph. Is that what we see now in the extant film? I don't recall seeing any jumps like that.

Exactly Sandy... the limo seems to glide down Elm with no changes in speed at all... yet the data related to these images shows a slowing, speeding up, slowing again, etc...

....you see that on the Zfilm do you Sandy? Truly claims the limo almost hits the curb on Elm.

Do I see the jump in speed in the z-fiim? I don't think so. Is it there to see?

What's your point in saying here that the limo almost hits the curb on Elm? Didn't that occur during the part of the film that no longer exists? Well before the frames you are talking about here? (If you are changing subjects, you need to say so.)

When the film jumps from 132 to 133, motorcycle to motorcade the normal "stop/start" frame lightening is not seen - images of this were posted in this thread. If we assume Truly is lying, why? This dovetails into the Towner film's alteration and syncing... but that's another story.

Mr. TRULY. That is right.
And the President's car following close behind came along at an average speed of 10 or 15 miles an hour. It wasn't that much, because they were getting ready to turn. And the driver of the Presidential car swung out too far to the right, and he came almost within an inch of running into this little abutment here, between Elm and the Parkway. And he slowed down perceptibly and pulled back to the left to get over into the middle lane of the parkway. Not being familiar with the street, he came too far out this way when he made his turn.
Mr. BELIN. He came too far to the north before he made his curve, and as he curved--as he made his left turn from Houston onto the street leading to the expressway, he almost hit this north curb?
Mr. TRULY. That is right. Just before he got to it, he had to almost stop, to pull over to the left.
If he had maintained his speed, he would probably have hit this little section here.

So it was changed. and that turn is removed from the record. At 161 he would have been accelerating from that near stop, yet by 161 he would be traveling much faster that 2.24mph...

Good, now you're writing in a coherent way that can be followed. So you're saying that the limo is traveling at only 2.24 mph at Z161 but should be traveling faster by then.

I'm saying the DATA shows it to be moving at 2.24mph and accelerating to 17mph within a second. Do you see that in the film? as no one I've ever spoken with does.

Look at the difference between 161 and 166... that .9 feet [11 inches] covered in 5 frames was proven by Chris to equate to 5, 48fps frames in a row yet is claimed to be at 18.3 fps.

FWIW, I measure the distance covered in the five frames to be 1.4 times the outside diameter of the limo's tire. I assumed the tires to be 15 inches inside diameter and used a profile photo of the limo to determine that the outside diameter of the tire to be 26 inches. 1.4 x 26 = 36.4 inches distance traveled. (I used the white dashed line on the road as a reference in determining the distance traveled. It shows the direction traveled.)

So my measurement shows the distance traveled by the limo to be 36.4" compared to Chris's 11". Which works out to be 7.4 mph compared to Chris's 2.24 mph at 18 fps film speed

The speed we refer to here is CE884's 168-171 speed of 3.73mph. Double this and we get your speed of 7.4mph. If you wanted to double the speed of the limo on film wouldn't you only need remove half the frames from any frame rate speed and project at the normal 16-18fps speed? of course you would Sandy. In some areas all the frames are removed, some 2/3, some 1/2... Maybe you can explain how a 16fps camera takes film at 18.3... then projected at 16fps it would look a little slow.

Chris should double-check his work on this one. I checked my work twice... though I used the same method both times. (I have more confidence in my work if I use a different method in taking second measurements.) My 26 inches for the limo tire might be a bit big.

That was my mistake not Chris' . His gif at this post explains it. The 9/10th of a foot is the Robert West Survey measurement, not Chris', The limo moves 2.4ft from 161-166 based on the distance between JC and JFK.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22692&page=1#entry326129

Look how little the white line moves between 161 and 166. the line starts at the left edge of the wheel's hubcap and barely moves forward.

Is your "little white line" the same as mine? See the Z frames below. The road's white dashed line (which is what I'm talking about) is never near a hubcap.

BTW, notice how far the car moves in those five frames. Definitely much more than Chris's 0.9 ft (11 inches).

Which is why the revised legend CE884 starts at 168-171 with the same exact location/station and covering the same distance as the original 161-166.

Okay, now your talking about something that I, as a non-follower of the thread, am not familiar with. All you need do is read thru the thread then Sandy... and I repeat... this was my mistake with the frames and the overlay... Chris' measurements are correct. Terribly sorry for the confusion.

This again is only the tip of the iceberg related to the math problems in trying to illustrate in math what we see on the film... in the real world with an unaltered film running at a constant rate of speed the math should work perfectly. That the math does not work is clue #1 that something is wrong.

DJ

If you cannot reconcile this first point, there is no use going on. Like all the other directly incriminating evidence, the film's authenticity cannot be established. There is good evidence which shows that the FBI had the film prior to Zapruder's negotiations with LIFE - IOW, Friday night. SS also had a copy in DC friday night... the film, in original form, would show more convincingly the shots coming from the front. As much of that evidence was removed as possible and photos instead of the film are used from there on out.

JFK was killed as a result of a well planned execution plan with numerous shooters, and even more there to cover it up. That cover up continues today

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." William Colby

From: Barbara Honegger

Date: Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: Conference on THE WARREN REPORT AND THE
JFK ASSASSINATION : FIVE DECADES OF
SIGNIFICANT DISCLOSURES
To: Greg Smith
I told Mae about it when we worked together ...
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Greg Smith wrote:

Thanks Barbara! That's priceless. The web attributes it to Mae B only, and therefore, it's discounted in chat and group conversations on social media. You might want to give it better street cred? Your call!

On Sep 21, 2014, at 8:59 PM, Barbara Honegger wrote:

> Seriously -- I personally was the Source
> for that William Casey quote. He said it
> at an early Feb. 1981 meeting in the
> Roosevelt Room in the West Wing of
> the White House which I attended, and
> I immediately told my close friend and
> political godmother Senior White House
> Correspondent Sarah McClendon, who
> then went public with it without naming
> the source ...
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
>
> Love to, but can't break away. I'll definitely get the DVD for future very intense scrutiny! On that note, in the words of the infamous William J. Casey, "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."

Z161

Z166

{sigh}

Mr. Larsen - I'm curious why you are in such a need to understand what this is about yet have argued against not only the content but the sheer process of posting the material in the first place?

Please follow...

Unlike you, we understand that what is now in 9 pieces in the Archives does not represent what happened in DP on 11/22

Also unlike you, we see the evidence offered to explain what transpired on Elm as a thinly veiled attempt to push a square peg into a round hole.

No matter where you are in the world, Time X Speed = Distance, and therefore: Time / Distance = Speed, Time / Distance = Speed, & Distance / Speed = Time (basic algebra)

This thread proves the FBI and SS used math to recreate the events in the form of evidence, then made sure the public did not see the film as a film for 13 years.

This thread was also able to determine that certain unaltered frame sequences were shot at 48 frames per second or Slow Motion. In turn, to change 48fps to 18.3fps we need to remove almost 2/3rds of the frames. A full 2/3 and we'd have a 16fps final film.

Using 168-171 changed to 161-166 we get an idea of what is happening. The film shows the limo moving at a constant rate of speed prior to the Stemmons sign.

Except in the original survey, 168-171 covered 9/10ths of a foot for a limo speed of 2.24mph..

171-185 comes to 17mph.. in less than a second the car accelerated from 2.2mph to 17mph? you see that on the Zfilm do you Sandy? Truly claims the limo almost hits the curb on Elm

Mr. TRULY. That is right.
And the President's car following close behind came along at an average speed of 10 or 15 miles an hour. It wasn't that much, because they were getting ready to turn. And the driver of the Presidential car swung out too far to the right, and he came almost within an inch of running into this little abutment here, between Elm and the Parkway. And he slowed down perceptibly and pulled back to the left to get over into the middle lane of the parkway. Not being familiar with the street, he came too far out this way when he made his turn.
Mr. BELIN. He came too far to the north before he made his curve, and as he curved--as he made his left turn from Houston onto the street leading to the expressway, he almost hit this north curb?
Mr. TRULY. That is right. Just before he got to it, he had to almost stop, to pull over to the left.
If he had maintained his speed, he would probably have hit this little section here.

So it was changed. and that turn is removed from the record. At 161 he would have been accelerating from that near stop, yet by 161 he would be traveling much faster that 2.24mph...

Look at the difference between 161 and 166... that .9 feet covered in 5 frames was proven by Chris to equate to 5, 48fps frames in a row yet is claimed to be at 18.3 fps.

Look how little the white line moves between 161 and 166. the line starts at the left edge of the wheel's hubcap and barely moves forward. Which is why the revised legend CE884 starts at 168-171 with the same exact location/station and covering the same distance as the original 161-166.

If you cannot reconcile this first point, there is no use going on. Like all the other directly incriminating evidence, the film's authenticity cannot be established. There is good evidence which shows that the FBI had the film prior to Zapruder's negotiations with LIFE - IOW, Friday night. SS also had a copy in DC friday night... the film, in original form, would show more convincingly the shots coming from the front. As much of that evidence was removed as possible and photos instead of the film are used from there on out.

JFK was killed as a result of a well planned execution plan with numerous shooters, and even more there to cover it up. That cover up continues today

From: Barbara Honegger

Date: Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: Conference on THE WARREN REPORT AND THE
JFK ASSASSINATION : FIVE DECADES OF
SIGNIFICANT DISCLOSURES
To: Greg Smith
I told Mae about it when we worked together ...
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Greg Smith wrote:

Thanks Barbara! That's priceless. The web attributes it to Mae B only, and therefore, it's discounted in chat and group conversations on social media. You might want to give it better street cred? Your call!

On Sep 21, 2014, at 8:59 PM, Barbara Honegger wrote:

> Seriously -- I personally was the Source
> for that William Casey quote. He said it
> at an early Feb. 1981 meeting in the
> Roosevelt Room in the West Wing of
> the White House which I attended, and
> I immediately told my close friend and
> political godmother Senior White House
> Correspondent Sarah McClendon, who
> then went public with it without naming
> the source ...
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
>
> Love to, but can't break away. I'll definitely get the DVD for future very intense scrutiny! On that note, in the words of the infamous William J. Casey, "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."

I can only answer with Sucher's statement.

The weapons dealer who said that many factories produced the same weapons and there were many repeating serial numbers.

From Vincent Bugliosi's book:

"William Suchur [sic], the owner of International Firearms Company of Montreal, informed the FBI on March 12, 1964, per a letter from J. Edgar Hoover to the Warren Commission of April 22, 1964, that “in the 1930’s Mussolini ordered all arms factories to manufacture the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. Since many concerns were manufacturing the same weapon, the same serial number appears on weapons manufactured by more than one concern. Some bear a letter prefix and some do not” (CE 2562, 25 H 808). However, no other Mannlicher-Carcano with a serial number of C2766 has ever surfaced, although one with a serial number of 2766 without any prefix did. .... However, even if another Mannlicher-Carcano did surface with the same serial number as Oswald’s, C2766, it would be irrelevant since we know one with that serial number was sold and sent to Oswald, was found in the sniper’s nest*, and was proved to be the murder weapon." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 340 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"

* Slight error on Bugliosi's part here. Vince, of course, knew full well that the rifle was not found "in the sniper's nest" itself. He obviously meant to say "on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building" instead of "in the sniper's nest".

But it seems to me that a reasonable interpretation of what William Sucher told the FBI in March 1964 would be that only the four numerals that appear after the letter prefix in a serial number are repeated when stamping the serial numbers on Mannlicher-Carcano rifles. Hence, he said "some bear a letter prefix and some do not".

Therefore, when the four digits in a given serial number are identical to the numbers stamped on a previously manufactured gun, a letter prefix is added to the number to set it apart from all other Carcano serial numbers. I certainly think that's one way to interpret Sucher's remarks at any rate. Although apparently Vince Bugliosi did not interpret Sucher's statement in such a manner. Otherwise, I think he would have mentioned such an interpretation in his book, which he did not do.

RELATED FLASHBACK....

GIL JESUS SAID (ON SEPTEMBER 9, 2008):

[Quoting from Commission Exhibit No. 2562, p.15:] "Since many concerns were manufacturing the same weapon, THE SAME SERIAL NUMBER APPEARS ON WEAPONS MANUFACTURED BY MORE THAN ONE CONCERN. Some bear a letter prefix and some do not." .... Now, where did he say that no two weapons bore the same letter prefix?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID (ON SEPTEMBER 9, 2008):

Yes, you're correct here (in a way), Gil. I'll admit that.

I.E.,

The above passage which you quoted from CE2562 can, indeed, be interpreted this way:

The exact same 5-character serial number can appear on multiple Mannlicher-Carcano Model 91/38 rifles that were manufactured at different plants, which would include the same prefix letter as well as the same four numbers that follow the prefix letter.

But I also think the above quote from CE2562 can be interpreted another way, which is probably the correct way of interpreting it, especially when factoring in these two things as a prerequisite:

1.) J. Edgar Hoover's comments to J. Lee Rankin on Page 1 of that 20-page document that makes up Warren Commission Exhibit No. 2562, wherein Hoover is telling Rankin about two specific rifles of interest to the Commission, rifles which bear similar serial numbers, but not serial numbers that are exactly the same, because one of them doesn't bear the "C" letter prefix.

And:

2.) The fact that nobody, to date, has produced a single example of another Model #91/38 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that bears the exact same 5-character serial number as the one that was shipped by Klein's to Hidell/Oswald in March 1963. And, as far as I am aware, nobody has ever come up with ANY two separate MC 91/38 rifles that bear the exact same 5-character serial number, regardless of whether the number is "C2766" or some other number.

Given the above two facts, I believe that the above quote that you cited from CE2562 could reasonably be interpreted in the following manner:

The exact same 4-digit serial NUMBER (i.e., the numerals 0 through 9) can appear on multiple Mannlicher-Carcano Model 91/38 rifles that were manufactured at different plants, but if the very same 4-digit number does appear on any two rifles, then one of these rifles will include a letter prefix in front of the 4-digit number, while the other rifle will not have this prefix.

In my opinion, the above explanation is a reasonable one, given the comments by J. Edgar Hoover on Page #1 of CE2562. And it's also a very reasonable explanation when factoring in the following comments regarding this topic of serial numbers that were made by the FBI's Robert A. Frazier to the Warren Commission in 1964:

MR. EISENBERG -- "Based on your experience with firearms, is the placement of a specific serial number on a weapon generally confined to one weapon of a given type?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, it is. Particularly--may I refer to foreign weapons particularly? The serial number consists of a series of numbers which normally will be repeated. However, a prefix is placed before the number, which actually must be part of the serial number, consisting of a letter."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Have you been able to confirm that the serial number on this weapon is the only such number on such a weapon?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, it is."

Thanks for the shout out Jim H... and Jim D here is my reply to him... you too Michael.. thanks.

Okay Dave - in your opinion then 2766 does not equal C2766 - and I agree with you.

CE2562 is a letter to Rankin explaining the existence of a Rifle with "2766" on it - no "C"... so that order was tracked down and what do we find?

No prefix on any of these rifles? I can understand some rifles don't have the prefix... but ALL of them Dave?

. you suppose all these rifles without a prefix is possible given what we've seen of serial numbers on Carcanos?

This is the Century Arms listing of rifles sold to Vermont in June 1962, which includes "2766" and is the only # with a notation on it.

I guess it's possible - so all you need do is get the rifle - in a 5 foot carton - to the PO BOX (or at least a notice to pick up said package since the BOX was too small... (We have a copy of that notice for pick-up Dave?)

So let me ask again... but first preface with an agreement.. The FBI was keeping tabs on Oswald... there are reports on his activities from March 1 1963 on thru until Nov - right? (just look at the WCD's)

How come not a single word is mentioned about this Commie ordering a rifle in March and a Pistol in Jan from the very places the Congress is watching?

https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/057/57690/images/img_57690_111_300.png is a FBI report from March 25, 1963 talking about his receiving THE WORKER... so someone at the USPS is keeping tabs on what Oswald is getting in the mail whether it be sinister or not - but we must agree they were watching and reporting

How does the FBI miss Oswald - and all the paperwork related to it - ordering and being shipped a 5' rifle in a carton which requires special documentation and a physical interaction with the Dallas Post Office in order to retrieve, yet there is no evidence for this...

One more request... PROVE the rifle was removed from Harborside's original inventory of 520 cartons of these "38 E" rifles... that you cannot shows your connecting the dots from Italy to TSBD is fraught with problems

DVP states: And one of the best documents that proves Oswald ordered Carcano Rifle C2766 is Waldman Exhibit No. 7.

Waldman7 is the Blank order form.... problem being Dave is the Secret Service and virtually everyone else but you understands what C20-T750 referred to:

The model 1891 TROOP SPECIAL or TS for short. Thing is, the 91TS Kleins ordered has an ADJUSTABLE REAR SIGHT.

And look! the ad running is for a 36" carbine with an ADJUSTABLE REAR SIGHT. In fact, this same ad runs until Feb '63: for $19.95 get a scoped 36" carbine with an adj rear sight

A good number of businesses actually plan out their advertising so they are sure to have the item advertised in stock.

For March, 1962 they were obviously ordering 91TS rifles to support an ad which would run a full year.

Yet within a month of starting these ads Kleins cancels it 91TS order in favor of a rifle they did not advertise until April 1963, a full year later.

Why would they do that Dave? They have an ad running for a year specific to this 91TS Adj rear sight rifle yet cancels it and waits almost a year on a model that costs more as well is bigger and heavier?

So we agree that:

• a 36" adj rear sight 91TS model was advertised from March 62 thru Feb 63 as a C20-T750
• Klein's ordered 400 91TS rifles in Jan 1962, 2 months before the ad begins running
• In April 1962 - with the same rifle ad as March for the 91TS - Klein's cancels this order in favor of another rifle which is not specifically named on the order. Any one of 3 different rifles fits the M91/38 designation. Without the FC, TS or Cav. after the numbers, a specific rifle cannot be determined
• Beretta and Terni are manufacturing plants, not rifle IDs
• Klein's continues to advertise the 91TS rifle in July yet the ad has changed slightly and only offers the scoped 36" carbine with Adj rear sight for $19.95

  Except there is no evidence offered that they had the 91TS in stock - if anything, the order for 400 of them suggests they are out or low in stock, if they ever offered that rifle before

So Dave, as I've asked you before... what rifle was used to fill C20-T750 orders from Feb 62 thru Feb 63?

How about it Dave? From the available info, the only M91/38 rifle sold by Kleins as a C20-T750 was Hidell's - which means M91/38 refers to FC rifles

except "Beretta Terni 91/38EFF" gives no indication to Crescent, which rifle they wanted since the "Berreta & Terni" parts refer to 2 different manufacturers, not a model.

EFF is also not a model and refers to EFFective date 4/13/62... yet Waldman didn't know that.

You and the other WCR apologists claim the FC rifle was shipped instead. Fine. The evidence offered shows Rupp does not remove a rifle from Harborside (where C2766 supposed arrived in Oct 1960) until Aug 1962 and we both know the Aug 62 pull did not included the carton with C2766.

So what did they ship for C20-T750 orders until February 1963 when they finally receive the FC rifles and where are the accumulated orders that would have pulled from that Feb shipment.? Please provide proof of answer - show us a single document from anyone anywhere that shows just one of those other 99 rifle on an invoice or being delivered or photographed due to it being the same as the rifle that killed JFK...

The order form you hang your hat on has no authentication Davey. FBI SA Dolan both took and left the microfilm depending on the report. Did you know he claims they provided Waldman a copy of said microfilm 2 weeks later? Klein's would have had the copy for review at any time... where'd that go I wonder....

And here is my proof....

Dave still does not understand that some writing on a piece of paper is only the smallest part of authenticating the ownership and possession of an item.

Things like getting the rifle to Kleins in the first place, order prep, inventory levels, payment processing, shipping, and finally retrieval of a 5 foot cardboard carton with a rifle.

I wonder Dave... since the FBI and US Postal Inspectors and assorted informants were watching Oswald - would you please show us an FBI report prior to Nov 22 which states that informants at the USPS and REA tell us that Oswald has received - in addition to the magazines we've told you he receives - a rifle in a 5' carton from his PO Box and a pistol from REA from which there is no evidence and brings them home to Neely in Dallas, moves it from Neely to his aunt's house on French in New Orleans, then to Magazine also in New Orleans.

From Magazine Marina and baby go with Ruth on Sept 23, Ozzie and 2 small suitcases are seen leaving Magazine - these were described as small, 18" suitcases which are supposed to fit a 32" piece of a rifle?

Ruth and Micheal testify to NEVER SEEING A RIFLE in their home, in fact never seeing a rifle until Nov 22.

Ozzie calls from Dallas on the 4th of October asking that Marina ask Ruth to come get him... Marina basically hangs up o him and he supposedly hitchhikes to Irving. Does he have the rifle with him now Dave? If so, where is it?

He hitchhikes to the Paine's (according to the story) and there is no mention of a rifle or pistol from then on until Nov 22 and the ridiculous garage story Ruth concocts.

Sorry Dave... there is simply no ground for you to stand on here. There is no proof C2766 ever left Harborside on route to Kleins to Hidell and TSBD. The fact is was there at the TSBD does not equate to the journey you are claiming it took.

Try and prove the journey the rifle took with evidence of the journey, not the assumption that if it was there the journey MUST have happened the way we were told by the FBI, Harry Holmes, the Secret Service and the DPD - all of whom tell a different story...

Thanks, David. Is that an FBI document?

Yes. It's their more detailed recap of the Aug arrest.

Commission Document 75 - FBI DeBrueys Report of 02 Dec 1963 re: Oswald/Russia

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10477&search=cruz#relPageId=388&tab=page

(Note: Go to MFF and Search for MIGUEL MARIANO CRUZ... only a handful of reports copied and placed in numerous locations)

Just to reply to the thread topic.... The CRUZ in relation to Oswald has a different name, parents and birthday...

And was involved in the Leafing "attack" with Bringuier.

So I am wondering about the showing of the film that Friday and then again on Sat & Sun.

It is said they ran it on an Analyst projector at very fast speeds to check quickly for errors in printing. I found Phil's recap letter which states the Analyst projector was 4x speed and either 8mm or 16mm film worked.

Filmed at 48fps, this showing at 64fps (4 x normal) would it be obvious it was filmed in slo-mo or not ???.

The film shown on Sat morning at Kodak is supposed to be the film Sorrels gives Kelley and then onto the FBI and is brought by the FBI to Kodak, and appears to be already altered.

The CIA claims that the FBI told them they got a film before Zap negotiated with LIFE... which had to be Friday night.

They watched this back and forth according to Phil Chamberlain - who also says the Analyst Project was 16mm, not 8mm yet he says he's "pretty sure" they were working with an 8mm film...

4:00 p.m.
Kodak personnel, using a special viewer, watched the film once to determine if the processing was correct. Kodak manager Phil Chamberlain then declined to show it again for fear of accidental damage.

I am still of the opinion that no one sees that "original" again while the film sent to DC by Philips may have been 0184 which in turn becomes the film copies seen over that weekend.

Zap gives Stolley 0183 (unless that was the film taken to DC Friday night) and still has another "Best Copy"

Once again we have 0183, 0185/6/7 0186 is the SS copy and the only film with the 0186 number punched into the film

So #1 - 0183, Zap best copy #2 - 0185

#3 - 0186 SS copy, 0187 #4-FBI copy provided by Sorrels

and #5 film (the 4th copy or 2nd original) is sent to DC Friday night and is never heard from again.

Yet here we see even more conflict with how many rolls were given to Zap, who ran off the end of the roll, and how many copies with which Zap returns from Jamieson.

Doesn't the journey's end of one of the films at SS Chief Rowley's office just beg the question -

What ever happened to THAT film?? given that LIFE gets Zap's best copy on Nov 25th

For this charade to work, the "master film" as SS agent Philips calls it, needs to be altered, copied and returned to Zapruder by the FBI Sat morning - there are simply no adequate descriptions of what was seen in the film beyond what Dino and Homer tell us.

Again, great job Chris showing how all this interconnects using math. The 001-132 frames may have been filmed at "regular" speed and then a switch to slo-mo which would have been obvious if shown at 18fps. The frames between 132 and 133 effectively removes the slo-mo switch and the wide Elm turn. As for running 19 feet of film off to finish the roll - we have the Blair/Zap conflict regarding who even did it.

Thanks again - DJ

Incredulity and stupidity need not be your hallmark Mike.

Nobody but you has wandered off the range here. No one here talks about UFOs and Area 51 and gremlins but you - which makes it obvious why you can't follow the thread.

It remains so much more important to you that people listen to your uninformed drivel, ad-homs and hyperbole than for you to learn anything or contribute here.

Sad really as the silent majority of readers are like Richard - curious, interested and open-minded yet they, like us, must suffer thru fools like you.

Better to be thought a fool than to keep posting and removing all doubt Mike.

You've established zero credibility here buddy. and with each post patience wears thinner and thinner... so be proud that you mastered the tactic of Forum disruption for nothing more than your own self interest and your desire to dictate to others what is and is not appropriate subject matter to discuss.

If the shoe fits....

In Internet slang, a xxxxx (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement.

Thanks for the kind words Richard.

Yes, I get too hot over the lack of vision and the dedication to ignorance these two exhibit. My bad, but after 50 years my ways are pretty set.

I liken this to Tome Hume's work with the anagrams. When someone sees clearly that which you'd like to understand, an intelligent person doesn't attack it, they try to understand and work it into their world view.

I marvel at Tom's work even though I only understand a small part. I don't worry about right and wrong as this case turns the world upside-down and inside-out.

As for the story ever getting out to the public - I fear the Evidence has so become the conspiracy that it is like cream in the coffee... It can't be unstirred once the two liquids are mixed.

There are so few authentic facts in this case that, as my series is dedicated to, all we'll ever really see is the shadow of the conspiracy and how it was developed.

This also remains one of the few cases where witness testimony, corroborated, is infinitely more valuable to finding the truths that the physical evidence can ever be,,,,

Chris and I, mostly Chris, are using the math to try and separate the cream from the coffee - and has been more effective at that then any eyeballing or faith-based visual conclusion.

The place to start is the pre and post survey legend: and the 161 thru 210 distance and speed problems. The movement to 168 from 161 was brilliantly explained by Chris

The move of 166 to 171 as well. and finally 208 to 210 changing a 1 frame = 2.3' speed to a 3 frame = 2.3' speed.

Finally - I am convinced that WCD298's 3rd shot further down Elm was imaginary and needed to place 3 shots between 190 and 312 so it matched the altered film.

When Redlich mentions this report being completely incorrect after the Zfilm viewing (April 27, 1964) - I see this as him warning the WC lawyers that the evidence does not support a shot that far down Elm and needed to be fixed

And what happens in May? The 3 shot survey becomes a 2 shot survey with that made up shot after Z313 disappearing....The Evidence IS the Conspiracy

Thanks again for speaking up

DJ

Appears to be JC since JFK was down in Jackie's lap. Sorry for the poor resolution but I think you get the point.

Here's what it looked like the night the Bad Guys got a hold of the film and were going through the 48 FPS portion of it. This photo was taken at the exact moment they knew they saw sparks were flying up from the street where the little girl is seen running.

"We've got a busy night ahead of us," said the guy on the left. "No ####!" said the guy on the right.

[...]

Bawwaaaaa! Hilarious!

Geez Dude, the least you could do to even make a joke with bite is use 16mm or 8mm film viewers. But 35mm? That's downright amateurish on your part. But, don't let us stop you having your day in the sun...

Don't confuse the poor man with facts DH... ruins the "can I have an AMEN" at the end of his faith-based posts

When the 2 of you are done with the circle jerk, take your off topic crap elsewhere...

It's truly sad you haven't the self awareness to know what jerks you two are making of yourselves...

Can't understand the subject

Can't go learn more about the subject

Complain about the subject

yet you keep showing up and posting as if you have something to offer.

Wannabe's like you two come and go constantly... you do your cute little insulting and cointelpro attacks, you can't take responsibility for your own ignorance and yet we still have to suffer thru your trolling BS...

You two are what has become wrong with this forum and the community in general...

And now JB is throwing in everything plus the kitchen sink in an attempt.

Quote

The final point I'd like to make here is that neither David nor Chris has yet bothered to explain in plain English exactly which frames they think are not authentic. If you're claiming that the film is not authentic, the first thing you really need to do is to identify the extent of the forgery. I can't say I blame them for wanting to avoid this question.

Let's see if you can follow JB...

At 48fps there are more frames taken than the 486 we see.

48/18.3 = 2.623

2.623 x 486 = 1275 frames @48fps = 486 at 18.3 You still with me?

If you remove the 2nd and 3rd frame from each 3 frame sequence you are now left with a 16fps film that is a little darker than if shot at 18.3 due to the speed of the film at 48fps.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 is a frame # sequence at 48fps

1 4 7 or

3 6 9 or

2 5 8 are all 16 fps versions of these same 9 frames and each will show something a little different

Now what if we did this?

1 7 9 what was on frames 2-6 is no longer shown and we still have a 16fps film, albeit slightly jumpy (as wee see in the Zfilm)

18.3fps - why?

The grade of the street equates to 1 vertical foot for every 18.3 horizontal feet traveled - how convenient

The speed of the limo the FBI decided upon - 11.2 - equates to 1 foot traveled per frame

Yet from 161-166 the limo only moves .9' That's 2.24mph JB Does it appear to you that limo is moving that slowly at 166?

From 167 to 185 it's now back to 1 foot per frame or 11-12mph

Do you see the limo accelerating or decelerating from 186 thru 220?

The attached Zfilm is a Quicktime movie which runs forward and backward within QT. the speed is much more apparent running backward...

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

So one more time

1. 133: Ho likely is it that Zapruder stopped filming and then started up again and no a single frame is messed up nor do we see the tell-tale light leak we saw in frame #1
   
   
    
2. between 156 and 157 what appears like a tear has JFK going from looking in one direction around to the opposite direction. It is also at this time that 161-166 representing .9' traveled works out exactly as if those 5 frames were filmed at 48fps
    
3. 207-212... If you've been reading the posts you'd know but probably not understand what occurs at 207 down thru 212. LIFE claims an unnamed tech damaged 208-9-10-11 and has never offered an explanation for 156/157
   
   
4. Frame 303 is impossible. A moving motion picture camera cannot have both a moving subject and a stationary background in focus at the same time.
   
   and the impossible head movement
5. 314-17 Greer once again speeds thru a head turn after spending the last 14 frames staring at JFK
   
   
   
   This is 315-317:
   
   
    
6. And finally we have all of WCD298 describing along with a number of other exhibits placing a shot 40 feet further down Elm than Z313
   
   
   
   After all the frames that needed removing were removed - all one needed to do was to xfer the new 486 frame movie to a single continuous film thereby creating the sprocket images as we see them

Healy can explain it much better than I can in terms of the process and machinery... the work is available online.

I don't really care to hear your incredulity over what is posted here JB unless you address my previous posts... Please show us signs in the frames which indicate multiple shooters that you claim is so obvious.

Thanks

One more curious claim in post 288:

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.

I'm not sure where David got that bit from. I've never claimed that because the film shows the authentic timing of the shots, the timing of the shots proves that the film is authentic, which is indeed a tautology. (my emphasis)

What I pointed out (in post 285, if you want to check) was that the timing of the relevant section of the Zapruder film, between frame 210 when JFK first becomes visible to the hypothetical lone gunman, and frame 312, the last frame before the head shot, restricts any reasonable timing of three shots to less than six seconds, and that this timing, set against the time taken to operate the rifle, makes the lone-nut hypothesis very improbable.

In other words, if (note the word 'if' there) the Zapruder film as we know it is authentic, these 103 frames provide evidence that contradicts the lone-nut hypothesis.

What this particular point has to do with the authenticity of the film should be obvious. These 103 frames form an item of inconvenient evidence which the Bad Guys rather stupidly forgot to remove when they were faking the film. If these 103 frames are authentic, why did the Bad Guys leave them in the film? Alternatively, if these 103 frames are not authentic, why did the Bad Guys place them in the film? The Zapruder film's timing of the car's progress down the road doesn't prove that the film is authentic, but it does have implications that make the claim of forgery very difficult to believe.

Because this timing evidence is not found anywhere else in the photographic record, dismissing the film would weaken the case against the lone-nut hypothesis. It's sad, but not surprising, that those on the moon-landings wing of the JFK debate don't seem to understand the implications of their irrational desire to see a conspiracy everywhere they look.

Why should we even suspect that there is a problem with the timing shown in the Zapruder film? The only thing it contradicts is the timing that's implied in various official documents. No reasonable person would claim that just because something appears in an official document it must be correct. The obvious conclusion is that it's the official documents that are wrong, not the Zapruder film.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22692&page=22#entry331213 This is from your post #316 Jeremy

Consequences of Forgery

The film as we know it clearly supports the proposition that more than one gunman was involved in the assassination. If the Zapruder film has been faked, it can only have been faked by concealing genuine evidence favourable to the lone-nut hypothesis and by creating fake evidence pointing to a conspiracy. This is, to put it mildly, not very likely.

You write above (y'know, in case you forget where and what you write) : these 103 frames provide evidence that contradicts the lone-nut hypothesis.

Who outside the FBI, CIA & SS sees this film prior to 1975, as a film, not as individual frames ?.

Since you seem to be the Zfilm expert, using the briefing board below please identify for us the evidence of anything but a single shooter from the TSDB. If these are too small for you choose any Zfilm frames you like and only using these frames prove what you are saying - for once - rather than just saying it.

To the right - and posted before on this thread - are the frames the NPIC and LIFE determined had shots. Explain to us JB, using these frames, how they show more than a single rear shooter.

Too bad it has not yet dawned on you that LIFE was part of charade to remove the film from circulation - NOT to exploit it's ownership licenses or right other than to place individual frames - in the wrong order - in their magazine in the issues following the 22nd.

So stop bloviating and PROVE SOMETHING.

As for your 103 frames... there are so many things wrong which have been repeatedly pointed out to you and posted in this thread, especially around 210 (which was one of a series of frames that also mysteriously were cut from the "master" film.)

so here's one more for you JB - Anywhere we see no sprocket images a "copy" was used to replace the damaged frames... Why are so many places from the "master" film replaced by frames from a copy?

Thought there was only one little tear...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=fe34da04fa9f9ecacbee33bb7a5297f7&showtopic=15198#entry177596 Zfilm Analysis mentions the 1 foot per frame speed of the limo yet from 197-218 the limo only moves 10 feet... do we see the limo slowing to half the speed from 161-196?

You see Jeremy, this is called EVIDENCE, that which you never seem to offer in any of your posts.... you only offer observations, opinions and what you believe. Can't discuss logic and analysis with a person of Faith. And FAITH is the only thing you've offered to support you conclusion of an unaltered film.

The original survey has the 207-208 distance at 2.3 feet, in one frame. That's almost 29mph JB. So it was changed to 207-210...3 frames at .8' each is about 9.5mph for the WCR CE884.

IT WAS CHANGED Jeremy... because the MATH did not represent the FILM. So again JB, show us where this speeding up occurs over the course of 190-207 and then immediately slow down by more than half.

If the film is showing exactly what occurred, why does it appear that the limo is gliding at a constant speed from 134 to 207?

Yet again JB try not to hit us with Cointelpro tactics in rebuttal... can you simply post the frames in which you see evidence of multiple shots or impossible shot spacing... or not?

If not JB, I'm done with you. If you can't offer something to actually support your position, you have no position to offer.

As for Mikey... he remains on your coattails as long as you continue to sound like you are saying something. He, like you, remain completely lost in this thread while you stand on your soapboxes decrying what the "community" should and shouldn't be doing.

Here's a thought... pick a topic, pick a conclusion and present your supporting evidence/analysis rather than continue to play bewildered critic with a faith -based straw man argument

K? or is that simply too hard for you to do....