Jump to content
The Education Forum

Swan-Song -- Math Rules


Recommended Posts

Surveyarrow-10x10.pngInfo for Z207 will help:

Survey%20207.jpg

Difference between 21deg11min and 21deg50min = 2.14ft = 39min

Height used for JFK's head above the street in CE884 all frames = 3.27ft

3.27ft/2.14ft = 1.528… x 39min = 59.593...min = 1degree

3.27ft vertical = 1degree

David,

If you take that 10" elevation difference and incorporate it back into this scenario, it will look like this:

3.27ft vertical = 60 min(59.593 min to be exact)

3.27/60 = .0545 vert ft. per min

1ft vertical/18.3ft horizontal (ElmSt slope) = .0546vertical /1ft horizontal

1min = 1 horizontal ft.

3.27ft = 39.24"

10" / 39.24" = .254.../1 ratio

.254 x 60min = 15.29min = 15.29ft

You asked me earlier about the 10" vertical drop conversion in Shaneyfelt testimony pertaining to z161-166 and Elm St.

10"/12" = .833…x 18.3ft (Elm St slope ratio 1vert per 18.3 horizontal) = 15.25ft.

Close enough for goober-mint work.

Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 842
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Re Firecracker sound.This may be of interest to participants in this topic.

Why Use a Gun Silencer

So if they don’t make them anywhere near silent, why do people use them? It turns out, there are a lot of advantages to silencers, particularly for military usage, including:

  • A typical reduction in recoil of around 30%, which increases accuracy and reduces firing fatigue on the person shooting.
  • Drastically reduced flash, which can be a huge advantage for military personal, particularly in night operations or for snipers. By getting rid of most of the flash, firing won’t reveal your position from a visual standpoint. This can also be a critical feature if firing around explosive gases, particularly if, before firing each round, you put a piece of tape over the silencer opening to help prevent the gasses from entering the barrel of the gun.
  • Silencers help significantly in masking the position of snipers, not just because of getting rid of the flash, but also for audible reasons. Snipers can effectively mask their position by positioning themselves such that the bullet will pass by large hard objects, which will reflect the “crack” sound from the supersonic bullet much more effectively than the “bang” sound from a non-suppressed shot. This will make it impossible for an observer to tell which direction the shot came from, because it will sound like it’s coming from every direction in a perfectly chosen environment. Wolves actually use a similar technique in modulating their howls to make it sound like there is a huge pack of wolves surrounding something, instead of just one or two.
  • Suppressors change the perceived sound of a gunshot enough that most people wouldn’t recognize it as such, particularly in a city environment where there are numerous ambient noises.
  • Firing an unsuppressed gun in a small closed area, such as a bedroom or the like, can permanently damage hearing due to the noise being reflected back at the shooter at close range; this can also disorient the person firing the weapon. Using a silencer significantly reduces this risk.

Source;

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/11/gun-silencers-dont-make-them-anywhere-near-silent/

Link to post
Share on other sites

CE884 Z222 Converted:

Elev 426.11 - 3.27ft = 422.84

490.9 - 422.84 = 68.06

65.68ft + 3.27ft = 68.95ft

68.95 - 68.06 = .89ft rifle barrel end above window frame sill.

Difference between rifle barrel end height of z207 and z222:

1.17ft - .89ft = .28ft x 12" = 3.36 inches

See post #187 graphic for contradiction.

Excerpt from post#39:

The equation for the previous snipers nest material:

18"+ 8" = 26" = Rifle perch boxes to floor

1.333... x 12" = 16" = windowframe to floor

That is a 10" elevation difference between the window frame and perch box.

If you convert that .89ft into inches = 10.68 inches.

When applied back to the height of the box perch, the rifle barrel end at z222 was .68 inches above the perch box.

Not a lot of height to put one's hand underneath to control the barrel. See post #187 graphic.

Adding this to the 3.36 inch reverse angle problem(upward/downward) between z207-z222, no wonder why West said it was "jacked-up".

Link to post
Share on other sites
We're still waiting.


Yes, I agree that it's taking me longer to get this done. I do have a full-time job and I'm rarely at home. It will be ready when it's ready,


Quote from MW:

I wrote my recent reply to this thread not for you and Chris but for new people who are curious about this case. If you do a search, McAdams is always going to come up first. If they arrive here to EF, they're obviously going to look through it and when they see this thread, it's really going to cause a lot of head shaking and browser closing. This thread is really falling into Jim Fetzer territory.


Why don't you start your new thread and reply there?


You can then get into another fruitless discussion about the validity of the film.


There was a shot around the extant z207 location, there is a splice at 208, where are the sprocket holes in Groden's version for those frames? Most newbies can understand that correlation.


Please don't answer here!!! Do it on your own dime!!!


Chris, you don't seem to understand that this is a free and open forum. Meaning when people post theories and such like you have here, you can't just give yourself a pat on the back every time someone agrees with you, then use large text to shout someone down in anger when they disagree. The whole point of a forum is to present theories and then open it up for debate.


Your whole Math Rules thread is deeply flawed. There is absolutely no evidence that the film was tampered with. Look on the FBI reenactment film and you'll see a BW version of it that looks exactly like the one we see all over the internet.


There were no shots at 207 and 208. Just as JFK reappears from behind the sign, he's dropping his arm from waving - that's all. Then you can see the first shot - the throat shot that he starts reacting to followed immediately after by the back shot when his body lurches forward from the force of it.


Take a look at this animated GIF. Notice how they look almost identical. That was all that was happening just as he reappears from the sign until in the very next frame you start to see him reach for his throat. His arm was just coming down after those ladies on the sidewalk had yelled out to look over at them. Which is what he did as can clearly be seen in the Z film.




Do you really think that they would have just started firing whenever they wanted to? They had this timed down to as close to the last possible moment as they could but no organic shooting sequence could be absolutely 100% fool proof, which is why the Z film is a treasure trove of conspiracy.


But back to the film, there are no splices, frame removals and that kind of thing. As I've said over and over again, there was no need to fake the film because it was not going to be seen by the public anyway. There was no need to speed up the film to 48 FPS or whatever it is you and others have said here. What difference would that make anyway? And besides, if they had sped it up, I and many others would have noticed this immediately. This would be a glaring change of motion during the running sequence of the film.


I'm reading the bio of Bob Fosse and in it, there are chapters talking about when he was working on his films like Cabaret. This was around 1971, eight years after 11/22/63. It talks about how he was in the editing room while his editor was working on the film with a Steenbeck while Fosse watched it using a Moviola. Here's a trivia question for you - what film format were they using? (Hint: it was not 8mm).


It talks about how they were pulling film, using the cutter, splicing it together, watching it, re-cutting it, and so on. This is eight years *after* Zapruder shot his home movie on 8mm film.


Really, Chris. Do you really think people were sitting around doing this with an 8mm film mere hours after it was shot? How did they even know what to take out or keep in that early after the shooting? Why would they even speed it up, slow it down - what would doing that even show?


Then you have Dan Rather on 11/25 "describing" what he saw in the film, completely eliminating in his description the violent back and to the left movement from the head shot. Then, several months later, in the "eyes only" FBI film that includes the Z film, you see the exact same film you see today; nothing has been removed, including the back and to the left movement.


I don't know about you, but this all shows me that they didn't edit the film and they sure as heck were *not* going to tell the public what was in the film, and they didn't have to worry about that because the plan was not to show it to the public in the first place.


So you can continue to post math formulas and measurements and animated GIFs here and continue to pile them on one after another but it's all deeply flawed and really proves nothing. I'll say it again - the film was not edited because there was no need to and the technical capabilities back then would not have allowed them to anyway. And it was also not edited or faked because the whole plan was to keep it from the public.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your speculation underwhelms me.

How hard is it to start a new topic?

"It is also very easy to verify Marler's observations about CE 884 (17H 902), a data block containing Zapruder film frame numbers, elevations and distances from the re-enactment. It contains data for frames 161, 166 and 210. But Robert West, according to what Marler reports about his field notes, did not make measurements for those frames. The numbers entered for those frames are the ones West entered for frames 168, 171 and 208. It is easy to see in the Warren Commission's reproduction of CE 884 that someone erased the correct frame numbers and wrote in the fake numbers. The result of this alteration was to artificially move the first two frames westward and downward, and the third slightly eastward and upward. As Marler notes, this also has a devastating impact on the authenticity of the filmed movement and speed of the limousine (p. 255)."

You see, it's not a new concept.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The result of this alteration was to artificially move the first two frames westward and downward, and the third slightly eastward and upward.


And you believe that the above could actually be done using 1960s technology, when I just described Fosse working with Hollywood film prints and the most they could do was cut and splice them...eight years *after* Zapruder's film was shot with a consumer camera?


And you actually think that by moving a mere three frames in a film that it would drastically change the running sequence of it? We're getting into "Jackie shot JFK with the help of the limo driver" territory here, Chris.


I mean, wow. We're getting into absolute and utter ridiculousness here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How many missing frames from this one?

They both started as 48fps slow-motion clips?

Understand now. You don't know how fast the limo was even moving, let alone, what that would look like like on film.

Time to move on, start your own topic.

I've asked you before.

You can expect a non-response from me going forward.

48fpscut_1.gif

Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to post
Share on other sites
The result of this alteration was to artificially move the first two frames westward and downward, and the third slightly eastward and upward.
And you believe that the above could actually be done using 1960s technology, when I just described Fosse working with Hollywood film prints and the most they could do was cut and splice them...eight years *after* Zapruder's film was shot with a consumer camera?
And you actually think that by moving a mere three frames in a film that it would drastically change the running sequence of it? We're getting into "Jackie shot JFK with the help of the limo driver" territory here, Chris.
I mean, wow. We're getting into absolute and utter ridiculousness here.

Fosse? As in Bob Fosse? Now that's utter ridiculousness! LMAO! Actually, it could have been done utilizing 1940's film technology. Which was at least 13 years BEFORE the Z-film was shot! Take it to the bank!

Link to post
Share on other sites
The result of this alteration was to artificially move the first two frames westward and downward, and the third slightly eastward and upward.
And you believe that the above could actually be done using 1960s technology, when I just described Fosse working with Hollywood film prints and the most they could do was cut and splice them...eight years *after* Zapruder's film was shot with a consumer camera?
And you actually think that by moving a mere three frames in a film that it would drastically change the running sequence of it? We're getting into "Jackie shot JFK with the help of the limo driver" territory here, Chris.
I mean, wow. We're getting into absolute and utter ridiculousness here.

Fosse? As in Bob Fosse? Now that's utter ridiculousness! LMAO! Actually, it could have been done utilizing 1940's film technology. Which was at least 13 years BEFORE the Z-film was shot! Take it to the bank!

Ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know....

Thanks DH - and now with Chris' math we prove the 48fps and the bogus claim that 19 feet was "run off" before emptying the camera of film at Kodak... "0184" - this simple number explains a lot more than was originally offered IMHO.

"...Third print forwarded" - Max Philips to Chief Rowley...

Anyone ever trace what happens to the Rowley copy - 0184?

DJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, David Healey, I meant Bob Fosse. But more disturbingly if you had read my post up further, you wouldn't have had to ask for my confirmation.

Back into the 1940s? It's obvious that you have no historical perspective of film technique.

I'll let you guys think what you want and it's equally obvious that none of you have any understanding of the nitty gritty of film making.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The result of this alteration was to artificially move the first two frames westward and downward, and the third slightly eastward and upward.
And you believe that the above could actually be done using 1960s technology, when I just described Fosse working with Hollywood film prints and the most they could do was cut and splice them...eight years *after* Zapruder's film was shot with a consumer camera?
And you actually think that by moving a mere three frames in a film that it would drastically change the running sequence of it? We're getting into "Jackie shot JFK with the help of the limo driver" territory here, Chris.
I mean, wow. We're getting into absolute and utter ridiculousness here.

Fosse? As in Bob Fosse? Now that's utter ridiculousness! LMAO! Actually, it could have been done utilizing 1940's film technology. Which was at least 13 years BEFORE the Z-film was shot! Take it to the bank!

Ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know....

Thanks DH - and now with Chris' math we prove the 48fps and the bogus claim that 19 feet was "run off" before emptying the camera of film at Kodak... "0184" - this simple number explains a lot more than was originally offered IMHO.

"...Third print forwarded" - Max Philips to Chief Rowley...

Anyone ever trace what happens to the Rowley copy - 0184?

DJ

#0184 to Hawkeye Works?

When working with a master (film-video-print) the FIRST, the VERY FIRST thing you do in post-production, is make sure the original in-camera film is duplicated at the highest quality possible. Hence, a backup master, which I believe was assigned #0184.

Letting Zapruder out of a film lab walking around Dallas with the "film of the century" and NO backup is *utter ridiculousness,* fools folly!

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...