David Josephs

You know, both of you guys are an embarrassment to the serious JFK community with this thread

BTW - blow is out your A$$ Michael. Not our fault you're not smart enough to follow along and too close-minded to ever try.

But it is your own damn fault that you keep coming back to show off your ignorance.

You both have yet to offer anything here that was not already known... or refuted years ago.

Maybe if you'd just toddle off and do something else our affront to the JFK research community will not bother you any longer.

If you absolutely must post here - I'd ask the moderators to keep the boys on topic

MATH RULES.... is about Math, not whether you believe the Zfilm is authentic or not...

So Mikey, you seem the type that walks into a club with music and immediately starts complaining about the song 'cause it's not what YOU wanted when you walked in...

... and then starts to explain what music you do like and why it's not played here...

Didn't your mommy teach you - if you have nothing to add, STFU....

That's perfect Michael... condemn and insult that which you don't understand...

What are you in 3rd grade?

And yet there you are, post after post as if you had something to say, something to offer.

We're all now very aware of what you think about the Zfilm.... was that your point? To repeatedly post your opinions and beliefs without understanding the thread you are posting it within...

They call that trolling on the rest of the internet... here it's called "cointelpro tactics"... A step by step tutorial on how to disrupt forums and create believable straw-man arguments.

Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION'

Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt(trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation (excerpts)

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

And the one you've both used to death:

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

The manner in which you approach "Proof" is an embarrassment to research. You both should be ashamed for peddling your reworked and tired opinions and beliefs as FACTS related to the case.

Once again... MATH RULES is a thread about the MATH used to create CE884, CE560, CE875 and WCD298 to convince us that the physical evidence they offer is authentic. It's not and provably so.

That a fact as easy as Zapruder giving the FBI a film - his original? - on the night of the 22nd - cause it's not in the timeline you found with a Google search

The fact that 0184 cannot be accounted for or explained

The fact that Philips describes a 4th copy or a duplicate original 8mm print going to the Secret Service in DC

The fact that the "in camera original" is now in 9 pieces - none of which can be related back to 0183

The fact that 1 of the 3 (or 4) 1st day films - one of the two in DC Friday night - simply disappears and one of the SS films also has no identifying # on it

These are facts related to the provenance of the Zfilm "original". Now, what evidence again do you have to prove the film the authentic original? THAT is what you can start your new thread about...

Here we are talking MATH. So you can either continue trolling this thread (which is quite obvious to all) or do the right thing and go play with yourselves in a new thread of your devising....

Either way could you both try and Man Up and act like responsible adults rather than 3rd graders with nothing better to do than hit the new idea you don't understand with a brick cause it's over your head.

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.

Jeremy, you write: "If the Zapruder film has been faked, it can only have been faked by concealing genuine evidence favourable to the lone-nut hypothesis"

You truly have no clue what is going on here Jeremy...

Maybe some JFK101?

The "Cuba/Castro" conspiracy was used to keep people quiet since the evidence the CIA and FBI were creating by having Oswald in and around "Pro-Castro" Cubans all the while working for Anti-Castro groups.

Alvarado, one of Philip's assets from Nicaragua, told a bogus story to incriminate Oswald as having taken money from pro-Castro Cubans to kill JFK. Oswald was doing his job which by default made him look sympathetic to the Pro-Castro cause.

On the morning of the 23rd, one of the first things LBJ wants to know is what went on in Mexico

By mid afternoon on Nov 22 the "Castro Conspiracy to kill JFK" had been abandoned (as expected since it was simply for leverage) and Oswald the Lone Nut is born.

The entire process at Bethesda is to change the evidence from a shot to the temple blowing out the back of the head to a shot to the back of the head blowing out the Temple

Here is JFK with overlays of his intact skull and what Bethesda tried to tell us...

You see Jeremy, you are looking at this with 2016 eyes and not 1963. The film was not shown publically for 13 more years.

While you keep saying it's obvious from the film, what you keep forgetting is after that weekend and even during that weekend all the produced were frame reproductions with frame #'s that were arbitrary.

There is no "genuine evidence favourable to the lone-nut hypothesis" to conceal.... and why, if it supported the LNT would they remove or conceal evidence favorable to a lone gunman from the rear?

What evidence would that be Jeremy?

Both JFK and JC are shot in the back before the head shot... 3 shots - 3 hits (Have you found the JC shot yet? Z242 or z264?)

To many, the limo slowed to a crawl and stopped as is evidence in the 302-303 gif I posted with both limo and background in focus and Greer's amazing head turn

To many shots come from the fence area of the GK

FBI Statement: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brehm.htm

BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight..

Mr. SPECTER - How many shots were there altogether?

Mrs. HILL - I have always said there were some four to six shots. There were three shots---one right after the other, and a distinct pause, or just a moment's pause, and then I heard more.

Mr. SPECTER - Any conscious impression of where this third shot came from?

Mrs. HILL - Not any different from any of them. I thought it was just people shooting from the knoll---I did think there was more than one person shooting.

Mr. SPECTER - You did think there was more than one person shooting?

Mrs. HILL - Yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER - What made you think that?

Mrs. HILL - The way the 'gun report sounded and the difference in the way they were fired-the timing.

Mr. SPECTER. Well, have you viewed the films, Mr. Kellerman?

Mr. KELLERMAN. I have; yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. Was there something special in your viewing of the films which led you to believe that there were more than three shots?

Mr. KELLERMAN. No: it doesn't point out more than three shots, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. Which films are you referring to?

Mr. KELLERMAN. These are the colored ones that were taken on the right side.

So now we have a great many witnesses describing things which the FBI & SS were very concerned with disproving.

Kellerman's role at Bethesda was nothing short of amazing with him leaving Greer and the ambulance at the front, sprinting to the Morgue at 7pm at the back and then helping the FBI wheel a casket to the anteroom at 7:17.

Kellerman appears to have some guilt here but cannot go against the official evidence... and lo and behold the FILM does not show more than 3 shots...

I wonder how a film of an event with so many closest to the limo claiming there were more than 3 shots, and the evidence we have proving there were more than three shots - can be made to show only 3 and no more????

Well by golly, they may have removed some of what the film showed which would convince others that more than a single shooter from the rear was there that day.

And then, when we do go to the film with 1963 eyes we find the strangest of anomalies right where these claimed occurrences happened... the removal of the turn onto Elm, a break at 157, a break at 207, an impossible frame from a panning movie camera showing everything in focus, impossible head turns at 303 and 316 - right when the limo is said to have slowed to a crawl by oh so many witnesses, the absence of Chaney's reaction on film yet is corroborated by half dozen people.

All these strange things on the film in the most questioned areas of DP.

All the evidence... and I do mean ALL, is focused on one and only one thing - incriminate Oswald. Of course the film is going to be presented to the public as if it had never been changed...

What we are still doing here is to dive deeper into the Evidence which was changed. The Bethesda episode is fairly easy to follow once you start reading the ARRB evidence. Our Mr. Ebersole gives away the farm and Humes has moved the arrival time from close to 8pm back to 6:45 when he began work on JFK 10 minutes before he supposedly arrived.

When we ask you and Mikey to start a new thread it's because you've so badly butchered your position on this one. We all KNOW about the conspiracy boys...

What we are uncovering is HOW THEY DID IT.

When you finally understand that 2 Zapruder films are in Washing DC the night of Nov 22, maybe you'll start to understand that the Zfilm chronology is part of the Conspiracy's evidence.

Until then, start at the beginning of this thread and take some notes. It's been all laid out for you if you care... if not - then step up your game a bit please, your rebuttals are now quite whiny and annoying and say very little about what we are doing here... If you start a thread called, Why the Zfilm is Authentic, we promise to come over and play this silly game over there.

That you still can't follow that MANY SHOTS were turned into 3 and then those three were turned into 2 shots while the evidence needed to reflect this new reality is truly mind-boggling.

What is it in your understanding of the case that gets sidetracked if the film is in fact severely altered anyway?

If there is text that was saved you will get a prompt at the bottom left corner of the dialog box.

Not sure if you have to turn auto save on and its duration...

The film was not "FAKED" Mike, it was altered and created to show what it needed to and then evidence was created to give the film corroboration, as long as one does not look outside this closed loop presentation of evidence.

Isn't this apples and oranges, Dave? Altered, faked, edited, manipulated, created. Come on, you're a smart guy - don't try to answer with a subterfuge. You know what I mean and you know better than that.

Mike - if you truly don't know the difference between ALTERED and CREATED or FAKED and EDITED what are you even doing here? I am not saying anyone CREATED a film from thin air... I am saying that the film in Zaps camera was not taken at 18.3fps as that setting was not possible. I am saying that for significant portions of the filming, it was done at 48fps with a simple flick of a switch (your knowledge of that B&H camera is unknown). With 3 times as many jumpy frames in certain spots of the film, ALTERATION becomes possible so that it appears like a shot-at-the-time film, but it is not?

I'm not sure who said what about how the limo driver's movements are faked. But I'm going to reply to that. And it's really quite easy to figure out.

If you have fast movement and record it at a very high frame rate, all of those frames are going to capture the fast movement, allowing you to slow the movement down for analysis.

But if you have the same fast movement and record it at only 18 frames per second, then yes, there may be a not entirely clear capture of the movement. But that's all it is. There's no fakery...oops, sorry - ALTERATION - of the film. I've watched that portion of the film numerous times and it does not look like anything was altered. Again, a simple answer for something that's been blown out of proportion.

Again, your understanding and representation of the situation is somewhat flawed. Movement over time is easily analyzed and determined. In Bloody Treason an experiment was conducted to determine the speed at which a healthy, prepared young man can turn his head the distance we see Greer accomplish. By a factor of 50% and more, these men could not reproduce the speed. Dino Brugioni tells us that the headshot bloods platter he saw on his "original" looks nothing like it does in the extent film, that frames must be missing. That everyone simply accepted 18.3fps is the real surprise. That 12% difference begins to make the film look a little slower than a normal 16fps film when shown at 18fps.

So I'm not even sure why in the world something like that in the Z film would be held up as alteration/fakery/manipulation.

One other comment Jeremy made up above that I loved and wanted to point out. It's an out of park comment he made - the one where he said that people with a good case can answer something concisely where as people with a bad case go on and on and on with clips of motorcycles, endless math formulas, very long and long-winded responses, and so on.

Beautifully said and oh, so true for this ridiculous thread.

No one asked that you bring your uninformed opinions into a conversation that remains miles over your head Michael. Yet here you remain with that amazed Dan Quayle look trying to grasp these concepts.

As for JB "translating" my last post - no one will be holding their breath.

Why is it that you cannot address the questions posed to you about the topic of this thread?

Why do you supposed the SS, TIME/LIFE and the FBI performed reenactment after recreation after reenactment when they already had the film? Why do WCD298 if what happened is shown on that film?

Michael or JB - have you bothered to read thru WCD298? Bothered to try and understand from which source materials a shot 40 feet further down Elm than z313 was described so that the FBI would use this evidence to place a shot at the foot of the steps?

The topic is the evidence boys. Showing how the Evidence was manipulated - as Redlich puts it when discussing the Zapruder film conclusion made by the WC prior to even finding out if it's possible. Yet in January, 3 months earlier, the FBI produced a model explaining the whole thing

April 27, 1964

We have not yet examined the assassination scene to determine whether the assassin in fact could have shot the President prior to frame 190.

<snip>

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 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.

Looking now at the images below

Z313 is above the "ic" in Service. There are 4 different locations for the 2nd and 3rd shots that are neither 313 or 225 which we agree show shots hitting.

If the Zfilm we have shows the exact spot of the headshot which was agreed upon as z313... and a number of survey plats were created and altered to arrive at the 2 shot scenario, the SBT and Tague. what are we looking at and where did it come from?

If the Zfilm was authentic, why does the SS and FBI disregard this information and determine USING MATH where certain locations on the limo or on the street shots hit?

If the Zfilm was correct, why was it necessary to move the limo almost 40 feet up Elm for the final shot to work while still calling Z313 the "2nd Shot"

Wouldn't this statement mean that Hill was on the car prior to the third shot since he could not have made it if the limo had already accelerated?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Our car accelerated immediately on the time-at the time--this flurry of shots came into it.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you say the acceleration--

Mr. KELLERMAN. Between the second and third shot.

If the Zfilm was accurate and unaltered - would you please show us where in the film the limo has already accelerated and another shot arrives.

Shot 2 at 262 feet along the 18degree diagonal. Shot 3 "hit the target from a distance of 307 feet, measured downward along a 15 degree angle from horizon. https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/010/10699/images/img_10699_62_300.png

WCD298 has all the measurements and all the sneakiness of the FBI. Leo Gauthier switched the info on the legend, sealed the survey and entered into evidence MATH which does not support the film.

So you know, what we are doing here is to simply unravel the process which tries to make the world of physics irrelevant.. so that moving objects can be in the same place at two different times, how many shots became 3 which then became 2, and so on.

Don't like this game? fine. move on and find a game in that you'd like to contribute. But every single day you seem drawn to this thread with some desire to tell us we're wasting time, yet here you are wasting it right along with us for that matter. So keep cursing the darkness rather than light a candle and learn something... just do it somewhere else for a change.

Unless you simply can't help yourself.

We all agree on much more than we don't.

Sorry you can't seem to live and let live with others who may disagree with you.

Chris and I will continue deconstructing the creation of the conspiracy's evidence. Combined with Horne's info about the NPIC and the true hour to hour custody of Zfilms I feel confident this work will prove the Zfilm was predominantly filmed at 48fps and cut down to 18.3 as needed.

The film was not "FAKED" Mike, it was altered and created to show what it needed to and then evidence was created to give the film corroboration, as long as one does not look outside this closed loop presentation of evidence.

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.

I'm sure you've heard the old saying and the basis for the US criminal law system: Innocent until PROVEN guilty. It's not the other way around. Physical evidence is by no means "authentic by default" - that's absurd. Without Authentication of evidence we wind up with a situation like the Warren Commission. Can you imagine walking into a courtroom and claiming you have the murder weapon, "Trust us, it's the actual weapon"? That you answer your own question - why in the world would the Zfilm we see match the BS evidence we are offered... when in reality it does not. That you simply can't remember, or feign forgetfulness when we offer examples like Chaney's backed by Sorrels, Hargis and Curry. Please show us in the Zfilm or any other image where Chaney does what he is credited with doing by the eye/ear witnesses...

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.

Again JB, not claimed, and not on an island... his statement is corroborated by numerous people both in DP and the lead car... As for Muchmore, her evidence is what it is JB... she claims she stopped filming and yet we have an amazingly clear and steady version of the headshot...

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.

In most cases I would agree with you JB... But the reality of witness testimony is that it is supposed to support the physical evidence, on a whole, as opposed to contradict it. I'm sorry you don't see how, in 1963 and well before, physical evidence was used by the FBI to convict whoever they wished... You might read a Swearingen book to get a flavor for the FBI's mentality. https://www.amazon.com/FBI-Secrets-M-Wesley-Swearingen/dp/0896085015

If it were a single witness, or a small handful I'd be a bit more skeptical, yet the vast majority of witnesses contradict what the FBI/SS/CIA offer as "physical Evidence". That you are unaware of the wholesale removal of every item of Dallas evidence by the FBI on Fri night only to return more evidence than they took while also insuring the DPD photos of this evidence are all ruined.

It is exactly during a case where government involvement is obvious that the physical evidence needs to come under even more careful review for its authentication. Throwing clichés like Occam's Razor into the JFK assassination illustrates a faith in the DPD/FBI/SS of 1963 that you have offered little to support. No JB, in the JFK/RFK/MLK assassinations, the physical evidence is the main pillar of the conspiracy... Too bad you have not yet come to find that to be the case.

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.

See, now you seem to be employing a tactic which allows you to completely ignore 20 pages of posts in favor of your disbelief in the evidence which proves alteration, forgery, or a combination of both.

The Horne research into the 2 NPIC events and how they were compartmentalized is some indication of the plans in action. But since you've already decided the film is whole despite it's condition I wonder what it is you are looking for that would convince you of it's inauthenticity?

Does the film not having it's unique identifier 0183" any indication that something significant happened to the in camera original between printing and public examination? Zavada from Kodak acknowledges that the "original" he was given to analyze did not have the 0183 holes punched into any part of the film, and was assumed to be 0183 since the SS copies reviewed had "0183" printed on some part of their length. One of the SS copies does not even have it's 018#

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.

You appear to be confusing the theories and work of researchers trying to find examples of film/photo inconsistencies, and the 20 years of work which has been done since the book you are quoting came out. Personally I believe that Jack and Jim offered many good examinations of the evidence and in some I feel they went down the wrong path. Mary Moorman's position and that whole analysis proved that theory wrong... yet this does not negate alteration evidence in the many other locations on the film and in the Math.

From your link: - you see this is a cute dismissal yet does not change the facts, but substituting 308-317 for 302,303,304 is the bigger error. We were talking about the impossible frame 303. I posted the 302 blur to 303 in focus impossibility... and here then are 4 success frames which try to show us that in 1/18th of a second a 55 year old man is able to outperform college athletes. If there is anyone who loses by there being alteration in the film it would be Josiah who pioneered the way to a better understanding yet seems to have decided to stay with information only prior to 1970.

(4) The Zapruder film shows limousine driver Bill Greer turning his head to the rear in an impossibly short period of time (Whoops! Interpretation error!)

Figure 33. David Wimp GIF showing movement of occupants of limousine Z-308 through Z-317

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.

Not really JB. Fetzer in this day is not longer considered the figurehead of anything. His demise into crazy with Altgens and other non-JFK theories was a surprise to us all. A sad surprise but a surprise none the less.

Moorman on the grass or not will not make or break our case for alteration one bit. As for Chaney, you changing the subject to offer an example of other anomalies proves yet again your command of the events are truly only skin deep. Scratch a bit at your pre-conceived and pre-determined conclusions and we find the ugliness of government conspiracy.

No JB, it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove guilt with "Real Evidence" - evidence which has been authenticated by one of three processes... look it up.

If the evidence used can be shown inauthentic, it is thrown out of court or deemed circumstantial at best. In our situation here Authentication is easily accomplished or easily shown to be manipulated before and after the fact by primarily the FBI. I'll ask again as you ignored it last time

How fast does Hill need to be running if the limo is going a constant 11.2mph and the distance between the cars is say 10 feet. Hill is on the bumper at the halfway point of the follow-up car...

Mr. SPECTER. When was it that Mrs. Kennedy made the statement which you have described, "My God, what are they doing?"

Mr. KELLERMAN. This occurred after the flurry of shots.

Mr. SPECTER. At that time you looked back and saw Special Agent Hill across the trunk of the car, had your automobile accelerated by that time?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Tremendously so; yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, to the best of your ability to recollect, exactly when did your automobile first accelerate?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Our car accelerated immediately on the time-at the time--this flurry of shots came into it.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you say the acceleration--

Mr. KELLERMAN. Between the second and third shot.

There's another shot after the acceleration? After Shot #2? Flurry? What's going on here JB?

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

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

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?

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

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?

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.

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 CIA’s 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."

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. 3+58.66

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

Chuck,

For now, I'll state that early on in the government investigations, they realized there was more than one shooter. Hence the manipulation of data to put one person in the 6th floor snipers nest.

chris

Chris - not really a matter of "realizing" as those on the inside where convinced an attack on Cuba was going to happen as a result of a conspiracy to kill JFK with up to 4 shooters and a coordinated team of Cubans. The "Castro" side of the story may have been there all along to keep people in check since anything related to him would fall under National security.

The Lone Gunman was used in the face of the CIA's Mexico City revelations about Oswald taking cash at the Cuban consulate. Alvarado was a CIA asset run by Philips whose story was to place Oswald in Cuba receiving money on Sept 17-18. Nagell does his bank deed on Sept 20th after sending a letter to Hoover about the 17th/18th and a JFK assassination

Oswald's activities are double sided in that he is infiltrating these Cuban groups as best he can for the FBI yet each activity incriminated Oswald as a Pro-Castro sympathizer and supporter. Anyone who did this work placed themselves into the position of being accused of the very thing they were fighting against should the chips fall the wrong way.

The supporting conspiracy scenario of multiple shooters sent by Castro would be easily proven and was the topic of conversation until DC calls to tell them put a lid on it. From early Friday evening on, it was all Oswald all the time yet now all the "conspiracy evidence" must now be reworked for Lone Gunman, regardless or not if it was realistic - it would be the word of the FBI and the most "trustworthy" men in the country.

That this concept remains so difficult to accept is hard to understand - the verbatim transcripts of the FBI's fingerprint expert Cadigan were reviewed and changed by Allen Dulles prior to publishing to remove mention of the 400+ items the FBI had at their lab in DC as early as Friday night... he changes it to "a latent fingerprint" issue.

I bet our naysayers were not aware that the Commissioners could change anything they wanted prior to publication... and they did. The FBI only took 225 items from Dallas yet returned almost 500 items.

Nice trick, huh?

Our role here is not to convince but to make you think.

Likewise, Dave, likewise. We're trying to get you to see the err of your ways. Not everything is a conspiracy and the Z film IS the evidence of conspiracy if you'd open up your mind and see it for what it is, instead of thinking it had to be altered to make it one.

Err of my ways? Michael - we have no hard feelings despite your approach. That you believe the Zfilm is pristine given what we know went on, given how easy it is to show it to be anything but authentic - why isn't the one unique identifier, 0183, cut with circles into the film itself not on the "original" you defend so voraciously?

Please follow along Mike...

This is the film map of SS copy #1 - you notice they can't say 0185, 0186 or 0187 since that information is not in the film... what they do have on this film is a printing of 0183 on a section of the film which stands between 2 optically printed splice marks so in the REAL WORLD you can't conclude anything but this section of the film was spliced into the film this was copied from

We then get 32' of home movies from side A (a side which only has 30' of exposable film) AND ANOTHER SPLICE, then 25' of black film AND ANOTHER SPLICE to the 10' of assassination footage AND ANOTHER SPLICE printed onto the film... and finally the backward printing on the emulsion side...

0186 is found on SS copy #2 with the splices and the 0183 photographically printed BETWEEN 2 SPLICES...

How many splices does it take before a film original - which would NEVER be cut up into pieces - be no longer considered original? If you replace the head of a hammer 5 times and the handle 3, is it still the original hammer?

Of course not Mike... and back in the world of reality - a spool of 8mm double side film is 25 feet long. Just looking at the map below we have well more than 60' spliced together to represent this "copy" of the original.

The "original" has more than 45' of film and only shows the assassination.

If you wish to show me the ERR of my ways you'll actually need to offer some evidence to support your contention - not just your opinions...

Try some facts Mike, they are very empowering...

David and Chris - how much of the Zapruder film do you think is not authentic? If you're not saying that the whole thing is a fabrication, exactly which frames are genuine and exactly which frames are fake? Were the faked frames completely faked, or do they contain elements from the original images? If the latter, exactly which elements of each frame are genuine and which elements are fake?

For someone who claims to be following along it is quite obvious you've glossed over the many posts which address your questions...

I wonder why someone of your perceptiveness needs to be spoon-fed this in any case... is this level of depth your "norm" when researching a topic? Ask and hope someone tells you...

The entire argument is presented in this thread - you seem to say that going back over it from the beginning, carefully and with focused attention is simply too much of a task, or you're simply not interested enough to learn the argument before you debate against it...

Why is it that posters like you two can be as condescending and ignorant as you are yet expect us to "spell it out" for you in bits and bites you can digest? The way you barged into the conversation should be rewarded with clarity? If we were talking about 8 year olds we'd send them back to do their homework.

You present little to no argument to support the authenticity other than "read this" or " listen to him" and can't comprehend something as simple as the film was in the hands of the Secret Service and FBI Friday night, 20 hours prior to NPIC's Saturday work and 2 days before the public boards were created... 48 hours and you're argument is the CIA/SS/FBI didn't have the time?

All we have is example after example of the FBI/SS creating or removing evidence based on its incrimination of Oswald. The Xrays were altered to create a rear to front looking set of wounds... we all agree there was a conspiracy and more than one shooter... yet it remains out of your grasp to see how the EVIDENCE explains the conspiracy, if you know what to look for...

Regardless of what this evidence tries to say, it cannot outsmart physics and the limitations of reality - the main reason the Silly Bullet Theory is not possible is that the exit is above the entrance going back to front... physics doesn't work that way.

So as requested numerous times... start a thread where you try and prove 0183 - the camera original whose unique number does not appear anywhere on the "original" in the Archives - is actually the camera original. Of the entire 30 foot side B only 6'3" shows an image... everything else has been stripped away and it sits in 9 parts... how is this not an altered film?

2 different films on 2 different days arrive for processing at NPIC...

so when you claim there was no time or no need, it is obvious you are projecting a desire rather than offering authentication.

Interesting how you can be so sure of the BYP yet be so tenuous with the Zfilm... your naivety regarding skills sets, machinery and capabilities of the early 60's comes mainly from opinion rather than experience, what you "think" rather than what you actually "know"...

Our role here is not to convince but to make you think. As DH says, it's up to each of us to determine what makes sense and what doesn't... While I can appreciate your desire that this film be authentic, the great preponderance of evidence suggests otherwise.

In the abstract, the idea that the Zapruder film was altered isn't one of the wackiest ideas polluting the JFK assassination debate. After all, physical evidence does sometimes get altered in criminal cases. As it happens, of course, there is no good reason to believe that the Zapruder film has been altered, most importantly because no-one has been able to demonstrate even a single discrepancy between the Zapruder film and the rest of the photographic evidence beyond a vague "this kinda sorta looks a bit strange to me, and that's all the proof I need". If the Zapruder film as we know it is not genuine, dozens of photographs and other home movies must have been altered to match the new version of the Zapruder film. Good luck trying to prove that one.

Dozens of photos? Stop right there - your comment illustrates how little you know about the situation.

There are only three other films and only a handful images of the motorcade on Elm after Betzner/Willis

Other than Moorman, please offer a single photograph of z313

The Nix original? Missing

Bronson? reveals very little

Muchmore? says she did not film the shooting

Zapruder

So please point out the syncing problems that were not addressed by providing bogus data about the films/photos involved...

How do you explain the Philips letter and the CIA memo regarding the FBI being in possession of a film Friday night?

When the both of you talk about "no opportunity" you truly have no idea what you're saying. Nor does it seem possible for you to follow the information offered.

The SS was ready to shoot Rose over the autopsy but they just let Zap hold onto the most revealing film of the assassination they had... you guys really need a wake up call... like yellow cake in Niger 50 years later, the evidence is the conspiracy...

486 / 18.3 = 26.56 seconds without the reality of when he actually started filming:

Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's correct. I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street.

Just look at three Zframes and see the difference between Z001-2 and Z133. Definitive? no. Contradictory, yes.

Doesn't the word of both people involved count for anything? The entire turn sequence is removed. A turn which reflects poorly on the SS for making the limo slow so much

yet both place the start before the turn onto Elm. How Towner & Bell show what they do is hard to reconcile...

As for Mr. Thompson's word... I'm afraid evidence discovered and presented since 1999 speaks louder than words.

The film sent to SS Chief Rowley in DC is never followed. The story of Zapruder and LIFE is played out yet there is nothing that specifically connects that film with this event, other than it being from the Secret Service and it being an already split 8mm with some footage of Abe's family still on it - per Philips' note.

"This event commenced about 10 PM, EST, on Saturday evening, 11/23/63, when two Secret Service officials (estimated to be in their late 30s or early 40s) brought an 8 mm home movie of the JFK assassination to the CIA’s National Photographic Interpretation Center, located in building 213 in the Washington Navy Yard. (At no time could Mr. Brugioni recall either of their names.) They had not yet seen the film themselves, and Mr. Brugioni is of the distinct impression that they had just gotten off of an airplane and had come directly to NPIC from the airport. They did not volunteer where they had come from, or where the film had come from. The event at NPIC went on all night long, until about dawn on Sunday, November 24th. [Note: The home movie of the assassination brought to NPIC by the two Secret Service officials was not copied as a motion picture that night; nor did NPIC even have the capability to do so." http://www.manuscriptservice.com/NPIC-DougHorne/NPICZapruderFilmEventsRockwellFinal.pdf

This paper goes on to explain that what we know as "original" simply cannot be proven so... and in fact there is more contrary evidence than that in support of an unaltered film.

I tend to go with the word of those actually working on the inside, with the evidence, than those who interpret it...

But to keep posting here over and over again to keep the ranking of this thread high and your photo over in the post by area is doing nothing for serious researchers and just makes someone like me and others look like fools for even being a part of this forum.

Chris and I are doing what we've always done... discuss, analyze and uncover relationships - then post the findings. Disagree, fine... make your case.

Math and opinion have nothing to do with each other.

The over 13,000 views this thread has received seems to suggest some level of interest for those who want to learn something.. only you are complaining here Mikey.

Chris has done amazing work unraveling this piece of the conspiracy... too bad there isn't an area we can say that about you - all you seem to ever do is whine, stamp your feet and attack what you can't comprehend...

Well done Mike, well done.

But that's all. This thread is an embarrassment to the research community. I don't know if you're a math teacher or what but you seem to like math. Good for you. But you don't even present it in a way that would help anyone with a decent sense of linear thinking understand what the %&*( you're talking about.

oh you poor boys... can't understand it so it must be something worth attacking...

So let me know Mike... who in the "research community" are you hearing this from? When Fetzer moves from intelligent discourse to Sandy Hook was a conspiracy, THAT embarrasses us.

And yet somehow we carry on as a group.

To anyone who has been on the forums for more than the 10 minutes you've been here, they are quite aware of what we are doing.

Just like many are aware of Tom Hume's work on the anagrams... I don't understand it all but that doesn't mean I go forging into a thread where he is discussing his work only to be a $%%^&ing jerk about it like you did here Mike.

Besides, who the #$#$ are you anyway.

Who appointed you thread nazi anyway? By your own admission you're clueless about the subject matter, the MATH involved.

What's the name of the thread again? zfilm alteration of MATH RULES?

Maybe someday when you understand what occurred and what actions and activities were necessary to turn the truth into a lie and a lie into a conviction in public opinion,

you will not be so critical of other people's work.

Better yet - do some of your own work and present it. It's not possible the extant Zfilm shows what actually happened.. The story of Chaney alone negates this let alone all the other problems.

So here's a thought - GO DO SOMETHING ELSE since the concepts & equations in this thread are so foreign to you. No matter what you say you cannot undo what the Math shows

All your good intentions and "ain't it obvious" BS has still added nothing to anyone's knowledge whereas we are discussing the exisatence of a shot the FBI & SS placed 40 feet, actually 39.66 feet farther down Elm - and then removed it from the records.

Go to https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10699and do yourself a favor and read the report of what the FBI concluded before there ever was a Silly Bullet Theory

Read Leo Gauthier's testimony

Google "Secret Service Max Philips zapruder film"

DO something more than whine about a thread you can't comprehend; you have crossed over into sounding childish and annoying just for the sake of hearing your voice, seeing your words.

Find something you DO understand and contribute... see, the answer to your and our problem here is simple. Just go away and let those who do get it discuss it like adults without some little kid pulling at our pant legs wondering what's going on...

I bet the research community thanks you and they'd be even more happy if you learned just a little about speed, distance, elevation, angles and the extent the FBI and SS went to subvert the evidence.

Altgens claims he was 15 feet from JFK when the last bullet hit... z313 does not fit that bill... yet we have z342 when JFK is finally there

Do you see evidence of a shot? Do you see how Altgens could claim he was shot at this point?

or how about Brehm's statement about the limo barely moving between the shots, 10-12 feet - that's half the limo length.

You will now go back to this thread and continue to believe that you are finding evidence of fakery in the film. But you're not using that common sense approach you used to find the fake one above.

I found Altgens cause it doesn't fit.

I see the removal of frames when movement doesn't fit. And they happen at critical times in the film as well - no real surprise.

What I object to is some need you seem to have to comment on this topic, "MATH RULES", with anecdotes and "Gotta be's" about your observations and our waste of time....as if you are the self appointed conscious of the forum.

You've added nothing to this thread Mike. Zero, other than to be contrary with little backing you.

If you can comment on the Math, please chime right in fellow traveler... but if you don't even understand the MATH and comment only to be argumentative... why bother?

You think the FBI & SS and Robert West just pulled these figures out of their behinds? Evidence was changed for reasons that seem to elude you.

So rather than just cursing the darkness, go find some light buddy.... Chris and I have been at this a while and will be well after you move on to another subject...

But, hey, thanks for letting us know what we're wrong about and why... as my dad tells me, always consider the source.

Early Saturday morning, around 2am in DC, the SS Chief and the FBI's senior most staff had a Zapruder film in their possession - while Abe slept.

Dino gets an 8mm film original Sat night, McMahon a 16mm film original Sunday night - or they both thought from the films with which they were working.

Two different films with 2 different crews within 2 days of the assassination.

Move along folks, nothing to see here... move along...

Here's a challenge for you. See if you can tell what's different between the two versions of the Zapruder film:

Starting at about 341 in the first film there are two Altgens' trying to take a picture while walking backward...

What's your point?

61' - 21.34' = 39.66'

-------

That equation is correct.

Do you believe Shaneyfelt moving the shot location from shot #3 to shot #2 (look at the SS/FBI plat and post #240) - 39.66ft is a direct correlation to the equation 61' - 21.34ft = 39.66' up the street, even though Tom P. states it was an erroneous assumption on Shaneyfelt's part, down the street?

Ain't nothing erroneous about it. But I'm still missing the exact meaning.

There was never a "real shot 3" location - 4+96 or 5+04 was their only other choice since he could not be hit until 190 once he makes the turn onto Elm.

There's be no room on Elm to put a 3rd shot after 190 and before 313 which is the problem we see in the NPIC paperwork.

LIFE tried 264 yet there is nothing at 264 to suggest a shot there, NPIC tried 242 - the consensus for the JC shot but again, no evidence of a shot there unless they saw a differently number film.

The fact that the limo length plus the move distance equals 61', and they moved a fictitious shot up the street 39.66' to the extant 313 location means....

??? please fill in that blank for me Chris - thanks

It's nice to know you have your finger on the pulse of the Zfilm research community Mike.... yet in reality quite a number of people are benefiting from this work, sorry you can't be one of them.

Yes, thank you. I'm quietly confident about my beliefs in this case. I believe in science but sometimes you have to go by instinct too. Cops do this all the time - they go with their hunch. Sometimes they're wrong and sometimes they're right.

So you actually think that because Greer says he didn't see anything that it's a conspiracy?

"it's a conspiracy" ought to be obvious to all by now Mike. The facts are simple - in 1/9 second can a person move their head that distance? According to the experiments performed on young athletes knowing there were going to spin their heads, Noel Twyman found it was not possible by a 50% margin and more. All this suggests (with a few hundred other suggestions in the evidence) all it says is that there are frames missing within the 2 frame movement we are seeing. Same thing for 157/158

Try looking ahead and very quickly turning your head around to the same position as you see him in the Z film, then look forward again. And try driving a car while doing that. Then put a head like Connally's in front of your rear view. It looks to me that Greer is telling the truth - that he didn't see anything. And remember - this was happening very quickly. How old was Greer - mid-50s? Yes it was his job to drive the limo and guard the president, but I say no one - and I mean no one - was extra alert and cautious that day, especially after seeing nothing but cheers and smiles from the airport until the plaza.

Nice of you to make excuses for the man - the same man who basically stops the car in the middle of a shooting gallery and watches as JFK's head explodes..

I don't know what you're seeing in the Hargis segment of your post above. Here's the frames in a GIF:

Hargis is not the focus of any graphic I posted - he's in the "Greer looking at JFK" image and is referenced related to Chaney, the final graphic

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxVUt6X2NWR1dJc2c

The little girl running and the guy stepping back onto the curb look normal to me. Yes, there are some damaged frames but watch the above - doesn't seem sinister or altered to me.

Chris has already shown you how you could not know what was or wasn't removed from a 48fps film... Add the fact you are looking at a stabilized version or single frame gifs and yeah, it's supposed to "look" normal - but that is where the math proves what we are seeing does not jive with what is being offered as supporting evidence

Your jumble of pictures of the motorcade and the statements don't make any sense. You've got Sorrels saying something, then a cop photo with a quote, then Altgens and frames from the film looking up Elm Street. I consider myself an astute researcher but if I don't understand your photos and statements, how do you expect someone new at this case to understand?

Someone new is not coming at this with your preconceived biases Mike. They read, analyze and decide if it makes sense or not. This thread in particular is NOT for the newbies. If you were all that astute you'd realize this as well as understand what we're doing.

I think this is what I meant in an earlier post - you're seeing what you want to see and you're all over the place, with Greer's statement, a damaged frame from Life, the cop's statement, and so on.

And you refuse to learn what you simply don't wanna know... take a step back, forget what you've already concluded and let the information do the talking. I've majored in math and finance and still am having a tough time with Chris' work as he sees the info so much more clearly than I do - just cause I don't get everything doesn't mean it's automatically wrong as you would have us believe.

Here's a challenge for you. See if you can tell what's different between the two versions of the Zapruder film:

I'll take a look when I get a chance...

https://youtu.be/SFYBgJEE9jo