Swan-Song -- Math Rules

[Chris Davidson]

-------

Added on edit: The Life magazine plug at z264 could equal the 39.66ft moved back from extant z313 = station # 4+25.64

CE884 z255 is listed at station# 4+16.4

At over a ft per frame from 255-264 that's 9+ft added to 4+16.4 = station# 4+25.4

Note CE z249-z255 6.4ft traveled in 6frames for limo speed at that point.

To early in the investigation?

Time-Life, WC298, Paul Mandel

David,

Where do you believe the 156ft base measurement comes from? A person's name would be fine.

Added on edit: P.S. Check your email first.

Edited July 3, 2016 by Chris Davidson

[Michael Walton]

Chris and Dave,

You may not want to to take my word for it. But you may want to take Josiah Thompson's word for it as seen here:

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/29th_Issue/jt_zfilm.html

And all you have to do substitute some names in the above. I'd be honored to take the role of Thompson while you guys can be the Fetzer twins. :-)

Enjoy reading, boys...if you dare.

[Chris Davidson]

O.K. Josiah,

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

What film were you viewing?

[David Josephs]

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...

[Michael Walton]

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.

Please don't ask me to start a new thread. As I said way up above, you don't seem to understand that this is a forum. You can't just post something here and take in the applause when someone agrees with you, and then ask people who don't agree to go elsewhere. Don't forget - this forum has the word "Debate" in its title, with the objective of debating someone's theories or ideas. There's no doubt in my mind that if I started a thread about, say, the Carcano being the only weapon used in the assassination, I better back this up with as much evidence to prove the theory. The same with your theory here in this thread.

Dave,

But you, too, are interpreting the evidence as well. You are looking at pictures, taking measurements, then interpreting it as "The Z film is fake." Like Fetzer did, like Chris does, like Hume currently is when he sees a word and finds a Nagell secret code in it.

And like Thompson did, and me, and others - we're interpreting the evidence as well, but with different conclusions. We're all interpreting here. And if no one had interpreted the evidence, starting with Mark Lane in December 1963, then all we'd know about it is the all-time biggest cover-up in history.

[Chris Davidson]

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.

[Chris Davidson]

-------

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 Davidson]

-------

Tom P. via Robert West:

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

Edited July 6, 2016 by Chris Davidson

[Michael Walton]

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.

[David Josephs]

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...

[Chris Davidson]

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.

[Michael Walton]

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.

The running girl is fine. The guy stepping back onto the sidewalk is fine. If there was a skip or jump in the motion then, yes, there would appear to be something "missing." But there's not. And what in God's name would a single frame or two taken out prove anyway?! Nothing! You'd have to really resort to the fact that out of 400 odd frames of a motion picture film, taking one or two out is NOT going to change the dynamics of what the film recorded, Chris!

It's ridiculous and I can't understand what in the world you're trying to prove here. And please don't post yet another motorcycle or running man clip, because then you're just spinning around in circles in your mind.

I've said this before and will again - there was NO NEED to fake the film, Chris. None. For the simple reason that the government (through Life) bought it up and kept it away from the public until 1975. It probably would have stayed hidden even longer if Groden had not gotten it shown on broadcast TV in 1975.

Look at this:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxZzFCcUluMm82ZVk

Here's Cronkite showing a photo of the motorcade. Why do you think he showed it? Because it was harmless and showed absolutely nothing.

Now think of the Z film. Friday goes by...then Saturday...Sunday. Nothing. No public viewing. Then Rather does his poorly described and hammy "description" of it, not mentioning the body being thrown backward.

It's not hard to figure out, Chris. And Dave - yes, it would have been extremely difficult to have coordinated any and all photos and films that day. If you think there was a gaggle of technicians and editors sitting around cutting, pasting, and jiggling photos and films to get them all perfectly aligned and "just so," then you deserve Chris Davidson's company.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

One of the problems with the 'Zapruder film was faked' argument is its proponents' lack of precision about what is supposed to have been done to the film. At least one of the contributors to James Fetzer's book, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, claims that the entire film is a fabrication. I presume that's the standard point of view among those who consider the film to have been altered.

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?

As Michael Walton mentioned some time ago, you need to sit down and compose a properly argued article rather than burping out a series of one-line mathematical equations and simple-minded debating points, which aren't going to convince anyone who isn't already a believer.

To convince an open-minded non-believer, you will need to provide a detailed account, with evidence, of which specific parts of the film you think have been altered. Appropriate evidence would consist of precisely documented inconsistencies with other pieces of the photographic record. Unfortunately, as Josiah Thompson pointed out here and here, no-one has yet been able to come up with a single apparent anomaly that doesn't have a perfectly innocent explanation. If you claim that a specific part of the Zapruder film is fake, and that part turns out to be consistent with another piece of the photographic record, you will need to explain how the photograph or home movie in question was altered to match the faked version of the Zapruder film.

Incidentally, The Great Zapruder Film Hoax isn't completely without merit. The book contains many entertaining examples of some amazingly sloppy and paranoid thinking, and I'd recommend it to anyone with a sceptical outlook and a sense of humour. My favourite part is the account on pages 222-237 of a visit to Dealey Plaza by a guy who imagined that a number of small devices, attached to lamp posts and a road sign and clearly labelled as wireless rain sensors, were actually microphones intended to pick up the conversations of tourists on the grassy knoll. Not only that, but one particular lamp post was able to be raised or lowered or slanted in order to "discredit any findings regarding the incorrect lamppost orientation in the Zapruder film." As if that wasn't bad enough, dastardly unseen forces sabotaged the same guy's digital camera, his electric shaver, and even his shirts. Actually, thinking about it, this last part may not be as crazy as it sounds. If They have the magical power to alter the Zapruder film, what's to stop Them messing about with someone's shirts?

[Michael Walton]

The whole "Z film is fake" thing is ridiculous and especially so with this thread. The whole Rosetta Stone with this film is this:

If the government had been 100% certain that they took the film and eliminated all instances of conspiracy by either editing out frames showing bullets hitting the ground, or a gun barrel showing up in front of the freeway sign, or whatever else, why - WHY - did they not then turn around, show it to the public, and say, "Here is the film recorded by a citizen. See, the film proves that only three shots were fired from the 6th floor window by the lone nut Oswald?"

But they did not. They would have had an extremely difficult if not impossible task of faking Kennedy's body being thrown violently backward. So what do they do? It's very simple. They hid it away for 12 years and only had mouthpieces like Dan Rather inaccurately describing it to the public. They had magazines showing only frames of the film, then writing completely inaccurate descriptions (e.g., "Kennedy turned his body 180 degrees to face the rear when he was hit in the throat by a shot").

That's the proof right there - that the film is authentic and that the film confirms conspiracy, which is why it was hidden away in the first place. I've watched numerous head shot video clips and I have yet to see one - not a one - of a shot slamming into the back of the head and then the victim's body suddenly and violently being thrown backward like Kennedy's body did in the film.

But let's talk about fakery, real fakery. In my opinion, the Oswald back yard photos are proof of fakery. They were doing everything they could to set this guy up and I think they got really greedy with the set up. It wasn't enough that Oswald was trained by the government to speak Russian, go over to that country and "defect," easily slip back into the U.S. with nary a blink of the eye by the government, get him to hand out pro-communist leaflets in NO, get him on the local TV news making outlandish "Yes, I'm a communist" statements. No, it wasn't enough. So they take photos of a stand in, get him to hold not only a gun but a pistol and even communist papers (to boot), pose him in an awkwardly standing position, and then paste Oswald's head on the stand-in.

Whew, talk about greedy.

Oswald himself said they were fake and he was familiar with photo techniques, having worked at JCS. The man wasn't even supposed to have been captured alive that day. But fortunately, for us, something went wrong, he was captured and we were able to hear bits and pieces from a man who knew what it was all about ("I'm a patsy..." and "The photos are fake...").

Faking a photograph back then was infinitely more easier to do than faking a motion picture film so they thought they'd try to pull it off like they did with the back yard photos. But what they couldn't fake, they just kept it from the public (like the Z film and the film or photos taken by the Babushka lady).

[David G. Healy]

[...]

As Michael Walton mentioned some time ago, you need to sit down and compose a properly argued article rather than burping out a series of one-line mathematical equations and simple-minded debating points, which aren't going to convince anyone who isn't already a believer.

To convince an open-minded non-believer, you will need to provide a detailed account, with evidence, of which specific parts of the film you think have been altered. Appropriate evidence would consist of precisely documented inconsistencies with other pieces of the photographic record. Unfortunately, as Josiah Thompson pointed out here and here, no-one has yet been able to come up with a single apparent anomaly that doesn't have a perfectly innocent explanation. If you claim that a specific part of the Zapruder film is fake, and that part turns out to be consistent with another piece of the photographic record, you will need to explain how the photograph or home movie in question was altered to match the faked version of the Zapruder film.

[...]

Jeremy that's where you are wrong. Nobody has to sit down with anyone and argue about anything. If the DP film(s) are all fine in your estimation, terrific. Just simply tell us why, then move on. Others will make their determination as they see fit. If film alteration is not in your book, terrific.

Without verification and authentication of the alleged Zapruder film (the most important piece of case evidence used to implicate LHO as the **sole** assassin of JFK and the SBT) the film alteration controversy continues.

For the record, the alleged Z-film is altered, frames were removed (film break LIFE, Chicago) and Z-frames were transposed (per JEH-FBI).

And the proverbial first frame flash continues to haunt the Z-film purists. What you seem to not understand is by doing the "math" what emerges is simple (to me), there had to be a second shooter in the plaza that day and possibly a third -- which proves not only a conspiracy but points to coups d'état.

You'll also be somewhat surprised that most 1964 WCR critics here have NOT eliminated the idea that LHO was involved.