Chris Davidson

Once you figure out what was done in post #266, your perfect sync idea becomes null and void.

Once you realize the problem with a frontal shot and the extant zfilm, post z313, your genuine film becomes null and void.

If you refuse to look at previous posts, that's your prerogative.

Whenever you decide to increase my viewer count, I'll refer you back in time. That's if I even respond to your cr----p. Which is unlikely.

Why don't you increase your viewer count by starting a new topic. That way, you can decrease my count. A win-win situation.

Time for more Math.

The Evidence in the Zapruder Film

It was alleged in post 270 that the Zapruder film is "the most important piece of case evidence used to implicate LHO as the **sole** assassin of JFK and the SBT." I pointed out in post 285 that the Zapruder film actually contains next to no evidence which implicates Oswald and supports the single-bullet theory, but it does contain much stronger evidence to the contrary: it seems to show that Connally was hit after Kennedy had already been hit, and that the head shot came from the front, and it necessitates the improbable claim that three shots were fired in less than six seconds. I pointed out that much of this evidence is found only in the Zapruder film.

It was alleged in post 288 that because the Zapruder and Muchmore films contradict the accounts of several eye-witnesses, both films must have been altered. I pointed out in post 299 that when there is a conflict between an eye-witness and an item of photographic evidence, the only rational conclusion is that the witness must be mistaken, unless it has already been proven on other grounds that the photographic evidence is inauthentic, which certainly hasn't happened with the Zapruder film. Eye-witness evidence cannot be used to support the theory that the Zapruder film has been faked.

It was alleged in post 288 that the Zapruder film does not contain evidence that more than three shots were fired, and that consequently the film must have been altered. I pointed out in post 300 that the film actually contains evidence consistent with at least four shots having been fired: yet another way in which the Zapruder film contradicts the lone-nut hypothesis.

Consequences of Forgery

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

I've pointed out in several posts that no-one has yet identified a single discrepancy between the Zapruder film and the rest of the photographic record that doesn't have a straightforward explanation. Consequently, if the Zapruder film was faked, much of the rest of the photographic record must have been faked too, a notion that is about as plausible as the moon landings having been faked (which at least one prominent 'Zapruder film is fake' enthusiast seems to have believed), or Elvis Presley being the gunman on the grassy knoll.

Paranoid Fantasies

What are we left with? That the Zapruder film contradicts the measurements and shooting sequences suggested by the FBI or the CIA or the Secret Service? I'm sure everyone can see the answer to that one: just as eye-witnesses can be unreliable, so can members of official agencies. Whether by accident or design, the agencies got some of their measurements and shooting sequences wrong. Big deal! With the realisation that the agencies were not infallible, the last surviving element of the case for forgery disappears in a puff of smoke.

All these equations claiming that the limousine was 49' 3" north-south-west of the faked photo of Neil Armstrong at Robert West's hypotenuse of station 3.142, or whatever, are just hot air. It's like discussing how many angels you can fit on a pinhead, when you haven't yet produced a single piece of credible evidence that angels actually exist.

I know what you're going to say: "But the Bad Guys can't make mistakes! They are all-powerful! I really like conspiracies! Please don't take my conspiracy away!" To which the obvious reply is that the Zapruder film provides plenty of evidence that more than one gunman took part in the assassination. That's your conspiracy, not some made-up nonsense about faked films. You can have one or the other, but not both.

Winners and Losers

Let's look at who benefits from this paranoid desire to construct imaginary conspiracies:

• If you claim that the Zapruder film has been faked, you are implying that evidence contradicting the lone-nut hypothesis should be discarded. Much of this evidence is found nowhere else. In whose interests would it be to discard this evidence?
• If you claim that the Zapruder film has been faked, you're wasting your time on a nonsensical dead-end. Your time would surely be better spent doing something productive, such as criticising the lone-nut hypothesis on rational grounds. In whose interests is it to divert people away from making worthwhile criticisms of the lone-nut hypothesis?
• If you claim that the Zapruder film has been faked, you are reinforcing the public perception that everyone who criticises the lone-nut hypothesis is a tin-foil hat-wearing paranoid fantasist, and that the JFK assassination is not a subject worthy of serious discussion. Again, in whose interests is this?

You are lost. You have no idea what the math is about or what it's showing you.

I can see you haven't quite figured out how ballistics and mathematics relate to each other.

Refer back to post #309.

Understand the question.

Answer the question.

I rest my case.

Start your own "Zapruder film is genuine" thread.

Anybody with half a brain can press and hold the button down in the bottom position.

He didn't do it, Chris. Watch the film. There is absolutely no evidence he threw those switches mid-shooting. Watch the frames one at a time - where are all of the additional frames? They don't exist because he didn't do it.

An absolutely ridiculous, faulty, pie-in-the-sky, way-out-in-left-field, "Fetzerous" theory, Chris.

Additional frames!!! You still have not figured out what was accomplished in post #266.

Try converting a slow-motion movie to normal speed using only the progressive frames.

Mid-shooting!!! Comprehension- Read what I write, not what you interpret me saying.

I've given you examples of how it was done on film. You don't get it. Or you just don't want to see what's in front of you.

Your own "zfilm is genuine" belief contradicts what is shown on the film after the extant z313 headshot.

Copied and pasted as a response to post #316.

Anybody with half a brain can press and hold the button down in the bottom position.

I guess Zapruder was unable to distinguish between "run" and "slow motion", what is that, an eighth of an inch apart.

Talk about a warped sense of what's possible.

Here's a nice photo of the frame rate switch.

Now everyone can determine for themselves, how difficult it was, to film continuously at 48fps (slow-motion) mode.

So you're thinking that a guy in his mid 50s was standing up on the pedestal, probably nervous as all heck as he waits for the motorcade to go by, and when it starts, he actually had the presence of mind to be pressing the button to change the film rate mid-recording? Haha! Absolutely laughable. He could barely hold the camera still and yet, we're expected to believe, "Oh right HERE is where I want some old 48 FPS, and then right HERE I'm putting it back to 18." OMG, Chris.

All one had to do was press down on that switch (til it hit bottom) and hold.

I see. First throw in your subjective Zapruder garbage, then, display your lack of reading comprehension by mis-interpreting what I said.

Let me know when you've figured out your debris conundrum.

David,

They're still trying to figure out post #266.

Your answer is much more appropriate: "it was done at 48fps with a simple flick of a switch"

All one had to do was press down on that switch (til it hit bottom) and hold.

The easiest motion of all.

They need to start their own topic, and stop increasing my view count.

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

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

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

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

At least an agreement on missing frames.

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

z207-z235 distance via CE884 = 25.7ft

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

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

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

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

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

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

The conversion would look like this:

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

David,

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

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

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

This puts you directly in Brehm territory.

chris

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

The chicken or the egg.

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

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

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

Connally? - Hypothetical in progress.

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

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

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

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

Hint!!! Look at Shaw's testimony.

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

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

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

If it helps.

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

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

Why is this important?

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

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

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

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

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

Chris -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David,

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

If in agreement, I'll go on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

If it helps.

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

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

Chris -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David,

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

If in agreement, I'll go on.

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

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

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

-------

Getting back to this, I believe Mandel receives his measurements from Breneman and they are published in the Dec 6,1963 Life edition. Robert West then corrects the work of Breneman, and the correct flat line distance to the first shot = JFK's physical location extant Z frame 207/208.

The distance between the first shot and head shot according to Mandel is 170-260ft or a difference of 90ft.

In CE560 (dated Mar27,1964), the distances change to 175-265ft, but the difference between stays the same at 90ft.

In other words, fix the incorrect surveying, and the above is describing the same location.

Chris - what in the world are you showing here?! I have all of the frames of the Z film on my computer. I don't need to look at this GIF because I can see the frames for myself. I've opened them up on my computer and have just cycled through them one at a time.

I suggest you look at the two Z gifs again, and compare the total number of frames between them.

Then, compare the total numbers to that same span from the extant Zfilm.

In the gifs, once the frame counter starts, the limo moves forward in every frame.

Your lack of perception is the only flaw that's been introduced.

So let me get this straight. You're posting all of these meaningless math formulas and film footage of clips of a motorcycle and of a gaggle of marathon runners that have absolutely nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination in general and the Z film in particular...and I'm the one who lacks perception?

That is, indeed, a very, very rich lack of perception and self-awareness, Chris. But you keep fiddling around with your measurements, pictures, and film clips if it makes you happy.

If you tried presenting this crazy stuff in a court of law, you'd be laughed out of the courtroom. The evidence to work with are the frames of the Z film, Chris, not footage of a motorcycle. And if you can't prove that that film was slowed down or sped up - and I know you can't - then all of the ridiculous stuff in this thread is a utter and complete waste of time.

Look for those missing frames Michael.

-------

Tom P. via Robert West:

Added on edit: Refer back to post #235 to find out who CB (Survey Party Chief) was.

-------

When there is a slight difference in the height of the Stemmons sign relative to Z's LOS, it can have an enormous effect on what we see behind the sign.

The last WC frame shows the signs true shape a little better, the earlier WC frame is where JFK would be at approx extant z207/208 and aligns the curb and the holes in the background wall.

They surely knew how tall Z was by May of 1964.

Chris,

Thank you so very much for your last post. It confirms every single thing I've posted here about the flaws of this thread. I rest my case.

Your lack of perception is the only flaw that's been introduced. You couldn't figure out what normal speed was (post 249+252) and what wasn't.

What do you think normal speed looks like when converted back to the original?

You should try understanding the concept before you rest your case.

O.K. Josiah,

I ask that you start a new topic with your response.

What film were you viewing?