Jump to content
The Education Forum

Zapruder film altered claim a red herring ?


Recommended Posts

Actually, the WC documentation was not in error, it fit their scenario quite nicely.

A plat was created, they had the film, and could utilize the landmarks for point to point distances.

They just didn't do the entire show this way. You know, the way a normal investigation is done.

Here's another one for you. Getting close to that 30ft mark.

8.75ft traveled in 5 frames.

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Actually, the WC documentation was not in error, it fit their scenario quite nicely.

A plat was created, they had the film, and could utilize the landmarks for point to point distances.

They just didn't do the entire show this way. You know, the way a normal investigation is done.

Here's another one for you. Getting close to that 30ft mark.

8.75ft traveled in 5 frames.

chris

So the documentation fits the film exactly? Is that what you now claim?

Then show us.

After all you just said they had the film and they had the plat.

Show us all the distances fit. Pretty simple.

Better yet, just show us 161 to 166.

Good luck with that.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that a partial copy of the Wests that has been color inverted or is it a digital copy of the original blue print. The witholding of the full set of notes and the full plat is, imo, is not helpful. It, to me, makes these posts difficult to confirm and involves a degree of blind faith when it does not have to be that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look a little closer (sign post), you will see that West was very detail oriented.

One can also see the other filming location used for making calculations/angles/sign position etc.etc.

chris

We are not talking about West, we are talking about you. Tell us how you measured using the sign post and the z frames?.

Better yet show us how 161-166 matches the data?

Good luck with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look a little closer (sign post), you will see that West was very detail oriented.

One can also see the other filming location used for making calculations/angles/sign position etc.etc.

chris

We are not talking about West, we are talking about you. Tell us how you measured using the sign post and the z frames?.

Better yet show us how 161-166 matches the data?

Good luck with that.

Craig,

Refer back to Post 31.

You seem to have trouble with the instantaneous speed (3.74mph + 2.24mph = 5.98mph) aspect.

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look a little closer (sign post), you will see that West was very detail oriented.

One can also see the other filming location used for making calculations/angles/sign position etc.etc.

chris

We are not talking about West, we are talking about you. Tell us how you measured using the sign post and the z frames?.

Better yet show us how 161-166 matches the data?

Good luck with that.

things get a tad bit tougher defending Zapruder-film legitimacy when you have to deal with documented Dealey Plaza survey benchmarks right Craigster? But when in doubt, try throwing the presenter under the bus, eh?

Sad, Craig Lampoon Lamson. We're all entitled to the facts as well as truth, just NOT yours. Carry on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look a little closer (sign post), you will see that West was very detail oriented.

One can also see the other filming location used for making calculations/angles/sign position etc.etc.

chris

We are not talking about West, we are talking about you. Tell us how you measured using the sign post and the z frames?.

Better yet show us how 161-166 matches the data?

Good luck with that.

Craig,

Refer back to Post 31.

You seem to have trouble with the instantaneous speed (3.74mph + 2.24mph = 5.98mph) aspect.

chris

Just to follow up on the "instantaneous speed" B.S. in relationship to frame 161-166.

Take note of the distance traveled for the 5 frames. Obviously, the extant film doesn't show this speed.

This is where the WC entity got a little confused (understatement).

You see, .9ft was not the distance traveled for 5 frames, it was the DISTANCE PER FRAME traveled for 5 frames.

Now for 5 frames, we get a distance traveled of 4.5ft.

And, .9ft per frame x 18.3 frames(1sec) = 16.47ft per sec.

16.47ft sec/1.47(1mph)=11.20mph

Shaneyfelt's supporting testimony is below the chart.

chris

P.S.

Do you know what 4.5ft + 30ft = ?

Look for that answer in a few previous posts.

P.P.S.

136.1FT/8.3seconds = 11.15mph

Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You continue to play with fantasy figures from a fantasy event

For once you get something right... way to go Lammy... :up

The WCR tries to tell us this FANTASY EVENT was what actually took place...

that this information EXPLAINS the Zfilm which in turn illustrates the assassination.

Now, why on earth would the WCR offer incorrect information in their attempts to explain the situation...

You continually ASK OTHERS for answers when you have none of your own...

and are further befuddled when the answer is provided...

Keep up the good work reinforcing the obvious... there's hope for you yet... :clapping

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Newman's were particularly impressive--Bill Newman in particular. "I don't care what the film at the Archives shows," he told me. "I was there. The car stopped." And his wife agreed.

I asked him how certain he was--and he invoked the Ivory Soap ad: "99%".

DSL

Hi David,

Do you believe that the limo was stationary at the moment of the headshot, and that the Zapruder film was altered to conceal that? And therefore do you believe that the other films that show the limo in motion at the moment of the headshot were also altered?

Paul.

According to the 5 witnesses I interviewed back in 1971, the car stopped (momentarily), and some said that was to permit Clint Hill to climb on board.

As I'm sure you know, 15 mph ~ a four minute mile.

Even if you knock off 25%, none of the witnesses I interviewed perceived the assassination to have occurred that way.

FYI: I interviewed both Newmans, John Chism, Jack Franzen, and Mary Moorman.

I'm relating what I was told, which sparked my original interest in this area. Ultimately, the film will be impeached because of other evidence--i.e., optical evidence and/or credible accounts of where the work was done, and by whom. Film alteration and autopsy fraud are the keys to the truth about the Kennedy assassination.

DSL

4/5/13; 7:30 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8mm film is pretty brittle.

16mm split 8 reversal is a little stronger...

there are two things about the split in the Z film that become obvious... either the missing frames are cut for timing issues, or some bumble fug broke the film after watching it ten times.

i spent a lot of time with that stuff in the 70's. it's weak stuff.

as for the "alteration" buffoonery, there is a split in the film, it is possible at some point it was transferred to another stock at a different frame rate, but as for adding people and removing things ( yes i've seen the 900 threads on the subject ) doubtful.

why would they edit it? for timing ..

point: it's easier just to line up an expert and lie than it is to go to the time and expense to mess with things.

again, whether it's altered or not, it shows enough of the pertinent information in it;

Kennedy got whacked.

His head exploded and LBJ got to put Jack Valenti on his payroll so he could have a "man massage three times a week " in case Buckley or Hoover were busy.

the zapruder film, altered or not, is what it is. get over it. move on. you aren't going to squeeze more pixels out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8mm film is pretty brittle.

16mm split 8 reversal is a little stronger...

there are two things about the split in the Z film that become obvious... either the missing frames are cut for timing issues, or some bumble fug broke the film after watching it ten times.

i spent a lot of time with that stuff in the 70's. it's weak stuff.

as for the "alteration" buffoonery, there is a split in the film, it is possible at some point it was transferred to another stock at a different frame rate, but as for adding people and removing things ( yes i've seen the 900 threads on the subject ) doubtful.

why would they edit it? for timing ..

point: it's easier just to line up an expert and lie than it is to go to the time and expense to mess with things.

again, whether it's altered or not, it shows enough of the pertinent information in it;

Kennedy got whacked.

His head exploded and LBJ got to put Jack Valenti on his payroll so he could have a "man massage three times a week " in case Buckley or Hoover were busy.

the zapruder film, altered or not, is what it is. get over it. move on. you aren't going to squeeze more pixels out of it.

I'm suffering a bit of a disconnect, reading your post right after Lifton's. Lifton interviewed people at the scene who saw the limo stop. He (quite rightly, IMO) concludes that this alteration is one of the keys to the case. If the limo stop was excised so were events surrounding the stop, and these events more clearly define the way in which Kennedy was murdered. Now Blair, you ask, why would they edit it? That's the right question with the wrong intention. It's the right question because it forces us to inquire what witnesses saw which is not present in the extant film. The intention is wrong because the pursuit of the this truth is never buffoonery, to use your characterization. You don't "get over" a fraud perpetrated in front of the American public. You have a duty to expose it for what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

things get a tad bit tougher defending Zapruder-film legitimacy when you have to deal with documented s right Craigster? But when in doubt, try throwing the presenter under the bus, eh?

Sad, Craig Lampoon Lamson. We're all entitled to the facts as well as truth, just NOT yours. Carry on!

I see "mo" has decided to join Larry and Curly.

So lets review "mo's" latest brain fart. The 1964 Stemmins sign post..a flimsy steel thing driven into the ground at an odd angle, and quite posssibly in a different position than the 1963 post....is now a "Dealey Plaza survey benchmark"! ROFLMAO

When 'mo" speaks people do spittakes.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look a little closer (sign post), you will see that West was very detail oriented.

One can also see the other filming location used for making calculations/angles/sign position etc.etc.

chris

We are not talking about West, we are talking about you. Tell us how you measured using the sign post and the z frames?.

Better yet show us how 161-166 matches the data?

Good luck with that.

Craig,

Refer back to Post 31.

You seem to have trouble with the instantaneous speed (3.74mph + 2.24mph = 5.98mph) aspect.

chris

Just to follow up on the "instantaneous speed" B.S. in relationship to frame 161-166.

Take note of the distance traveled for the 5 frames. Obviously, the extant film doesn't show this speed.

This is where the WC entity got a little confused (understatement).

You see, .9ft was not the distance traveled for 5 frames, it was the DISTANCE PER FRAME traveled for 5 frames.

Now for 5 frames, we get a distance traveled of 4.5ft.

And, .9ft per frame x 18.3 frames(1sec) = 16.47ft per sec.

16.47ft sec/1.47(1mph)=11.20mph

Shaneyfelt's supporting testimony is below the chart.

chris

P.S.

Do you know what 4.5ft + 30ft = ?

Look for that answer in a few previous posts.

P.P.S.

136.1FT/8.3seconds = 11.15mph

More bs from Davidson. You know Chris its getting quite obvious you are jsut making stuff up from thin air to fit your loony toons theory.

First you tell us the Data is correct, then you tell us its not. So which is it really. They have TOTAL distance traveled as .9. You say its correct. Now you say, oh wait its PER FRAME....which of course you made up from THIN air like almost all the rest of your garbage.

You put garbage in you get garbage out.

The recreation is flawed. It has to be flawed. Its impossible to do a totally accurate recreation. So the data it produces ...compared to the real, actual event, is at the VERY BEST a poor but educated GUESS.

So what does Chris do? He goes nuts trying to use this FLAWED data to somehow prove the film of the original event, has been altered. Is it possible? OF COURSE NOT. WHY? Because his base data is FLAWED. All calculations and assumptions towards the REAL event will ALSO BE FLAWED.

Garbage IN Garbage OUT.

Nothing from stopping you from continuing your silly game, and hey its your time so have at it.

But, considering you source data you will ALWAYS just be peddling GIGO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...