David Josephs

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.

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. Sitzman "he started filming before they got around the corner (Elm) - as she points to a spot south of Elm/Houston"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...

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.

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.

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...

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

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

61' - 21.34' = 39.66' - 21.34 = 18.32' (any meaning?) 419.71' - 419.07' = .64' x 18.3 = 11.71' up Elm 4+65.3 - 11.71 = 4+53.59 which appears to me as the spot JFK would have been when the front bumper reaches extant 313 on the street. 4+65.3 at 421.75' (JFK) - 3.27 = 418.41' (street) 4+65.3 - 4+53.59 = 11.71 / 18.3 = .64 so street elevation at JFK when front bumper is at 4.65.3 is (418.41 + .64 = 419.05) I'm just thinking out loud here - anything you can do to help... ------- As for Shot #1 at 3+81.34.... If we place the rear bumper at 207 instead of JFK, then JFK is at 3+81.34 (not sure if this is what you were looking for - I still do not comprehend the 81.34 unless we're talking rear bumper ?) 21.34 - 15.2 = 6.14' (JFK to rear Bumper) (z207) shown as 3+71.1 at JFK elevation 427.02 - 3.27 = street level 423.75' (not 423.07') 423.75 - 423.07 = .68 x 18.3 = JFK position at 207 is 12.44' further up Elm using the correct elevation 3+71.1 - 12.44' = 3+58.66 Rear bumper at 3+58.44 plus 21.34 = 3+79.78 please clarify Chris... I've confused myself here.... lol I see the 10.2' difference between 3+71.1 & 3+81.34 but I forget where the 10.2' comes from in you work...

What two distances within this graphic give you an equation for the length of the limo? 131.3 - 110 = 21.3 The limo extends from 2+50 along the 131.3 line leaving 110' from the FRONT BUMPER and 131.3 to the REAR BUMPER. JFK's location in the limo just adds another lever to confuse things

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. The scenario the FBI & SS offered to explain the assassination conflicted with the evidence by offering a shot well past what we see as Z313 and then removing it when it no longer worked.. I'm truly glad you know this was a conspiracy and that the Oswald Ruby shot did not shoot anyone that day... Yet as much evidence as possible was offered to confirm the exact opposite. If all this evidence is designed to convict a patsy Mike, and you truly have no idea what happened to the film and the copies and Hawkeyeworks and NPIC and Rowley in DC and 0184 - where do you come off preaching to us what we should or shouldn't be studying? You simply have done none of the homework needed to grasp the implications of PROVING what transpired to take 6 shots and turn them into three, to take frontal shots and turn the "Best Evidence" of that truth into the opposite. How every single item of evidence serves one and only one purpose - convict Oswald. Yet the FBI/SS/CIA basically leaves Zappy and his amazing film alone? You see Mike - "cause Mike says so" is not a proof of anything. When Doug Horne illustrates the 2 NPIC events with evidence - THAT is proof. When you look at these 2-3 supposedly "consecutive" frames and learn that what Greer does here is physically impossible in the time allowed. I believe the experiments were done and published in "Bloody Treason" - Point being, images can play tricks - MATH cannot. It either works and proves the hypothesis or doesn't. Can you offer a different explanation for why the FBI had WEST remove the third shot, why the distances and speeds do not compute in real life but only corroborate the obviously altered Zfilm which in turn is used to convict Oswald in public opinion. I guess bottom line Mike is why would you dive into a thread that was taking the proof of conspiracy and alteration steps further than ever before - in fact proving what it is you already believe by offering examples from evidence - yet attack the work as being "absurd". ?? What are YOU trying to accomplish by that exactly? There are 100's of channels on the Ed forum you can switch to at any time and ban this absurdity from your mind, but you don't. How again does Chris and I working thru the math involved in deceiving the public and explaining the transition from Dallas evidence to DC evidence have anything to do with your inability to grasp the work? As Chris asked - start your thread to prove the film authentic - you'll have plenty of support, get a few back slaps, and make fun of us conspiracy realists. THIS thread is about the MATH used to make 6+ shots into 3, into 2 and to explain how all the different levers which affect these calculations were moved. Why does our work bother you so when you admittedly don't understand it? Cause you're "sure" it wasn't altered... Well Ok... we are and are finding the answers in the math... Live and Let Live Mike... And then there's Greer's lying about what he did or didn't see (this is where they add the "My God I'm Hit" claim to counteract any thoughts of a shot from the front to the throat Additionally we have LIFE's break in the film yet removal of yet another sequence of frames. From Z157 to 158 JFK spins his head like Greer... Or the complete disappearance of the Chaney episode... as confirmed by Hargis, Chaney, Sorrels and Curry Mr. HARGIS - I don't know whether it was the Secret Service car, and I remembered seeing Officer Chaney. Chaney put his motor in first gear and accelerated up to the front to tell them to get everything out of the way, that he was coming through, and that is when the Presidential limousine shot off, and I stopped and got off my motorcycle and ran to the right-hand side of the street, behind the light pole.

Thanks! That makes it clear... except the location is 3+71.1 for shot #1 Where do you get 3+81.3? (I remember your 10.2' reference but I don't remember the math, sorry - that the sill versus muzzle thing?) Isn't 3+81.3 where the North-South arrow is pointing (mid hood) from z207 with JFK at 423.75 and rear bumper at 424.03?

Gonna need a bit more than that... lol I get the measurement but the theodolite is adjustable, right? it's not a fixed 5.41' tall - at least it doesn't look anywhere near 5'5" high in the photo you posted and appears that the legs allow it to move up and down... in fact it looks closer to 3.27' in that photo than 5.41'. So why "5.41' and what difference does the 2.14' make 3+71.1 should be 121.1 feet past 2+50 yes? yet it's either 110 feet, 171 feet or 232 feet given the three notations of 1) 110' = 171' - 61' & is offered as the distance between 171' and 61' yet is next to the "2+50" notation which is 429.7' and is supposed to be the TSBD corner 2) 171' at 423.07, shot #1 (which should actually be 423.75) yet that goes back to a 430.8 elevation at the TSBD in the line drawing yet is well behind 2+50 3) 232' = 171' + 61' if the 2+50 notation under 429.7 refers to a point west of the TSBD corner I simply want to understand the line drawing that I superimposed on the plat... and where you think 2+50 is represented... 429.7 or 430.8 elevation

Interesting thought Baker tells us that despite hearing his Chief and the County Sheriff telling all officers to check out the RR yard, he says he knows better.... after he starts to say something else, "I had it...." Had what? We are also to remember that Baker/Truly actually saw someone coming down the stairs higher up and Mooney tells us he runs into sheriffs coming down as he is going up to the 6th - and finally there is Ellsworth and the rest of what would become the ATF who were supposedly in the building before anyone and tells us the rifle was found on the 4th or 5th and moved to the 6th.... SENATOR COOPER - I didn't hear what he said he heard on the radio? Mr. BAKER - I heard Chief Curry, the chief of the police over there, say, "Get some men over on the railroad track." I think everyone at that time thought these shots came from the railroad track. Mr. BELIN - By "everyone" do you include you, too? Mr. BAKER - No, Sir. I had it-- I was in a better position due to the wind and you know under it, that I knew it was directly ahead, and up, and it either had to be this building here or this one over here.

Thanks Chris - If 429.16 is the H.I. why are they subtracting 3.27' (the difference between ground level and the top of JFK's head) to arrive at a point 2.14' above ground level? and what does that have to do with actual ground level at 423.73? IOW - what is WEST telling us about 207? And why does Shaneyfelt use the 5.41' when he could set the instrument to 3.27' high and get exact data.. beyond the obvious that is, why 2.14 and subtracting 3.27?. Is the difference the muzzle versus the sill? Finally, 168.34' foot base of the triangle at 3+71.1 3+71.1 = 171.1 feet past 2+00, yes? or 121.1 feet past 2+50 you can see my confusion regarding that 61' distance ? I placed 2+50 in line with 2+50 on the plat but that pushes the TSBD window back 61 feet... What are they doing here Chris?

There is a calc on the 207 survey page which reads H.I. 5.41 -3.27 ------ 2.14 With the two measurements on the triangle as 427.02 (street elevation CE884 @ 207) and 429.16 If 427.02 is the top of JFK's head - what does 429.16 refer to? Where does 5.41 feet come from?

Until Fetz and JVB can explain this - which I am sure they cannot without spilling beans - the woman has zero credibility Why Copy B? Why is one 1963 W-2 for work at UF under ChemResearch correct as both Copy C and the correct layout versus the Reily W-2 which does not match a single W-2 in history. JVB tried to claim it was a State form yet I found a LA state form from 1963 - so again, not so much. Baker’s father responded by trying to get her arrested as a runaway. However, with UF’s Dean of Women Marian Brady’s help, Baker obtained a writ of emancipation (at that time parents had legal custody of their dependents until age 21). Brady created several cover jobs for Baker to account for funding provided, in fact, by Senator Smathers “even as police outside her office door were demanding entrance,” says Baker. http://www.ctka.net/2015/JudythBaker-DJ.pdf covers many of the details with the help of Jim D.... She couldn't even get her friend Anna Lewis to lie about the correct month and year she was supposedly with Oswald.... and Judy was sitting in the room with her as she spoke on film... amazing.

that was a result of my overlay, not the frames

Actually, the black bars appear to be frame boundaries from a B&W version or a decolorized version. I found the B&W in the Groden Bell frames - at least that's how I have the files labeled. These are 4 successive frames - Chris D sent me a gif with no color loss at this point so IDK - is it known that Groden or someone did something to the Bell frames as an exercise? Here are the frames - the first

Thanks again Chris... You've found a series of levers: Window sill, Rifle muzzle, 4" down, 5+" down, rear bumper, JFK, JC, front bumper, JFK top of head elevation, 18.3fps related to rise/run of Elm and the 10" recreation vehicle difference related to the angle's origination point. The front bumper of the limo is 20.34/18.3= 1.166 feet lower than the rear at any given time along Elm when the rear bumper hits the 61' mark in Shaneyfelt's drawing Thanks for taking the time and having the patience to work thru this Chris... becomes invaluable as I write about WCD298 and the disappearing 3rd shot that never existed in the first place. The problem I have with Z225 is 1) it is obvious a shot had been fired with another soon after z225 hitting JC - extant film 2) the NPIC notes and LIFE do not recognize a shot in the Z225 range This is the NPIC "figgur it out" sheet for the Homer McMahon briefing boards. Z242? LIFE's z264?? Like they were looking at a different film than the rest of us.... DJ

So I'm wondering then Chris... How does the coat have a hole 5 3/8" down from the collar and the shirt 5 3/4" from the collar yet the coat did not bunch up 4 inches... BTW - these measurements are from the TOP of the collar, not the bottom as shown in the image. Furthermore, to believe an expensive shirt would ride up 4" simple means those claiming this do not know anything about fine shirts or tailoring. And finally... if the shirt and jacket actually folded over on themselves - wouldn't we see multiple holes where the fabric overlaps? "...assuming the Pres was struck at frame 210...." is almost as good as "....and then exiting from the hole that you have described in the midline of the neck. Now, assuming those facts to be true, would the hole which you observed in the neck of the President be consistent with an exit wound under those circumstances? The old is-an-exit-hole-an-exit hole trick... Specter was a crafty one... If he was struck at 210 one has to wonder what he's reacting to between 190 and 200.

I was watching Bell over again - I had created a gif to follow Rosemary - and I noticed something I hadn't before. Truly claims the limo swung wide onto Elm and almost hits the curb. 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. The limo and the people under the tree, the street etc all go from full color to B&W Is this on all the versions of the film? Sure looks like the people and tree are not in the same film during the B&W frames... IDK Thanks DJ

Now that's funny Mike. You're talking "reason"? Is "reason" what we're now calling unsupported opinions ? It's obvious you don't understand the subject matter yet you make repeated snide remarks about its foundation and meaning - and then call it "reason" when you're asked to do the simplest of things and can't...? Mike - the films and photos can be faked and/or altered... the math can't. The math proves why what we see and what occurred are not possible. We're all sorry you cannot make the connection between 18.3 frames per second and Elm's incline of a 1 foot drop over 18.3 horizontal feet - or that fact that those at NPIC sat night could not understand the 18.3fps when the camera had two settings: 16fps and 48fps with a spring load so over time the speed actual slows or that there were even two film originals worked upon by two different teams on two different nights or that the CIA informs us the FBI had the film original Friday night or that so much is missing from the extent zfilm which shouldn't be missing or that 0183 does not appear on the extent film or that Zapruder says he did not stop filming at the corner With as obvious as that splice is you'd think Zappy would simply say he stopped filming and waited until the limo turned the corner - but that's not what he says. nor does the splice recreate the same light bleed we see on frame #1 (see below) You see Mike - we come prepared to defend our statements with evidence and analysis - we've discussed these things for many years and gain insight by enlisting experts in their field to provide their input. David Healy is one such expert... You on the other hand stand little chance of being taken seriously when you repeatedly show the limitations in your understanding and the lack of desire to do anything about it Do you have any supportable responses to this evidence of what certainly appears to be a straight out splice in the film to remove an embarrassing situation for the Secret Service as well as bring to the forefront the 120-degree turn a presidential limo should NEVER have to navigate 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. Mr. LIEBELER - As you stood there on this abutment with your camera, the motorcade came down Houston Street and turned left on Elm Street, did it not? Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's right. Mr. LIEBELER - And it proceeded then down Elm Street toward the triple underpass; is that correct? 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.

Sir, you haven't offered one solid observation or the building blocks to a single conclusion/opinion offered which you can defend.... While we appreciate what you "think" we are more concerned with what you can defend with authenticated evidence. How fast does a man need to run to accomplish what Hill did? simple question given the speeds offered. Care to try? Use the information provided by the WCR and see what is being done here rather than continually interject an uninformed and basically unsupported opinion about a topic you've obviously not taken much time to understand. West creates a 3-shot survey diagram in Dec 1963 only to have the FBI have him recreate the identical survey yet removing this "last shot" down at 4+96 (a shot I understand as being created out of thin air to explain the 3-shot = 3-hit scenario) in May/June of '64. Now why on earth would the FBI order WEST to redo the survey Mike in order to remove a shot which they claim existed since their summary report on Dec 9th.? The FBI tried so hard to show 3 shots & 3 hits. The Secret Service tried as well... Which created the evidence we now have which in turn shows what a farce this was. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10402#relPageId=8&tab=page A. Assassin in Building As the motorcade was traveling through downtown Dallas on Elm Street about fifty yards west of the intersection with Houston Street, three shots rang out. Two bullets struck President Kennedy, and one wounded Governor Connally. The President, who slumped forward in the car, was rushed to Parkland Memorial Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 1:00 p.m. The first shot is identified as 171 feet from the corner. Not a bad estimate. But then they revert back to lying: Tests of Rifle By actual tests It has been demonstrated by the FBI that a skilled person can fire three accurately aimed shots with this weapon in five seconds. (DJ: this is complete BS as proven by the evidence of the "actual" test)) Leo Gauthier takes a model which is said to allow for a precise understanding of the assassination without having to go to Dallas, and subverts it into a bad CE with a legend that is never seen yet entered into evidence as authentic. How LIFE and the NPIC places shots at a variety of Zframe locations starting with 190 yet nothing between 216 and 242.. and nothing past 313..... And yet we both can see what occurs at 224 on the existing film. It's always amusing when someone who refuses to put forth even the smallest effort to understand what is being said, can expect anyone to give weight or credibility to their opinion. Wishing you're right and hoping no one notices or call you to task is a helluva way to post on an "Education" forum. You are aware that original Nix film was never returned? You are aware that Muchmore told the FBI that she did not, did NOT get any film of the shooting (the WC never did call her to testify, wonder why?) - if you were to look at the first half of Muchmore you'd see a real amateur film, she's somehow able to not only get the film but an amazingly clear closeup of the shots hitting JFK Try taking a few steps back and looking at the entire picture as opposed to your "this puzzle piece doesn't fit with that puzzle piece" mentality. This is called "projection" Mike. You want so bad to be right about something, anything, you're willing to keep showing us in post after post how wrong an unsupported opinion can truly be. Or maybe you're just hoping to stumble upon something that you can use to prove we're wrong? 161-166 is a great example. Covering 9/10ths of a foot in 5 frames at 18.3fps derives a speed of around 3 mph... that's walking speed - and it's obvious the limo is not moving at walking speed in the film... So the legend and information was changed and hidden. The math and film contradicts itself and proves what Redlich was trying to say. Maybe you've never seen this... do these speeds look correct to you - the math doesn't lie... only the FBI and SS do in this case. Taken individually the evidence attempts to support itself - a self-corroborating circle of evidence. But once you hold this evidence up to the real world with real physics and real motion, it falls apart - and that appears to be the one thing just out of your grasp. It was very apparent to the lawyers of the WCR. April 27, 1964 Redlich to Rankin: "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." Both of these "reports" (WCDs 1&3 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10404#relPageId=35&tab=page ) promote the 3 shot scenario with a shot beyond 313 which disappears And Once again we learn that a motorcycle (Chaney) pulled up to the Lead car immediately after the final shots - yet there is not a single image showing this occurring - Can you take a minute and see if you can work this thru? We have more than enough evidence to prove this one way or the other. Can you find any image where Chaney is doing what virtually everyone says he did? Mr. HARGIS - I don't know whether it was the Secret Service car, and I remembered seeing Officer Chaney. Chaney put his motor in first gear and accelerated up to the front to tell them to get everything out of the way, that he was coming through, and that is when the Presidential limousine shot off, and I stopped and got off my motorcycle and ran to the right-hand side of the street, behind the light pole. Mr. CURRY - I said what was that, was that a firecracker, or someone said this, I don't recall whether it was me or someone else, and from the report I couldn't tell whether it was coming from the railroad yard or whether it was coming from behind but I said over the radio, I said, "Get someone up in the railroad yard and check." And then about this time, I believe it was motorcycle Officer Chaney rode up beside of me and looking back in the rear view mirror I could see some commotion in the President's car and after this there had been two more reports, but these other two reports I could tell were coming behind instead of from the railroad yards. Curry says this at 12:31 on the dicta-belt transcripts - almost immediately as he says... with Chaney coming up to him very quickly. Mike - why is this missing from all the visual evidence? any ideas based on the evidence?