Jump to content
The Education Forum

Swan-Song -- Math Rules


Recommended Posts

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?

Survey%20plat%20WEST%20data%20for%20z207

Dealey_Plaza_map_from_Public_Surveyor%20

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 842
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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?

plat%20-%20what%20does%20250%20mean%20he

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is SOP for surveyors to LOS to the theodolite first.

Start from the ground and work up.

423.75 Ground elevation

JFK's head above ground at z313 3.27ft

427.02 elevation to JFK's head

Elevation between JFK's head and theodolite 2.14ft

429.16ft elevation to theodolite

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess for the theodolite initial height of 5.41' is West was comfortable setting it there because of his physical height.

Station# 2+50 is on a direct line out from the TSBD snipers nest, plotted on Elm St.

The 61ft starts at the base of the TSBD snipers nest and is the base measurement (part of the right triangle) for the distance out to the shot location down Elm.

The graphic gives you the measurements for shot#1 at Station# 3+81.3

The location labeled is arbitrary, don't read into that as the exact physical location.

theodolite.png

Distances.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

z207%20elevations_zpslaaocnlj.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom here are my replies:


Michael,


I'm trying to follow your responses in this thread. In order to clarify your position, could you please state your opinion as to the following:


What were the total number of shots fired in Dealy Plaza?


By watching the Zapruder film, I believe that 6 shots were fired. I'll always believe that the first shot hit Kennedy in the throat around 225, when he then threw up his hands; second, right after this one, hit him in the back where you can see him lurch forward from the impact; then Connally took his shot; there had to be some kind of wild shot far down enough to hit the curb and causing the nick on Tague's face; then two almost simultaneous shots to Kennedy's head, the first hitting the back of his head and then the front shot pushing him violently backward.


I've watched numerous video clips of people being shot in the back of the head, some from almost point blank range and I have not seen a one of them yet where the head and body are violently thrown backward. To me, the violent backward body throw as seen in the film is the single proof in my mind that there was a conspiracy.


From what location was each shot fired?


Pretty much explained above.


In what sequence were these shots fired?


As stated above.


Do you believe LHO fired any shots, and if so, how many?


No I do not. I put a lot of stock in Oswald's comment in the hall, "I'm nothing but a patsy." He almost said that out of earshot and if he had, we'd never have had that chance to hear this guy use that word. I think LHO was a smart guy, he was pissed off when they arrested him, and as the weekend went on, he knew he was being set up for the murder.


Think about it. How many so-called blue collar people would know the meaning of that word? And yet he was aware enough to know his situation at the time. Plus, there is so much evidence showing he didn't do it - the faked gun bag; the Paines setting him up; the three wallets after the Tippit murder; the bus-to-cab-to-rooming- house movements; the fake back yard photos; the proof that he was at work all day at JCS when he was supposed to have dropped the order in the mail; and on and on.


Which brings me back to the Z film. People see what they want to see. I just don't see what they see and they want to try to say they have "proof" by using math formulas and so on. As I'm sure others have, I've watched the film enough times and I just don't see missing frames, switched frames, warping sign poles, and so on. I've compared the Z film to other films taken earlier in the parade and Kennedy's movements look similar - he fluffs his hair, he's looking around waving, the ladies yell out and he looks over and waves, he starts dropping his hand from the wave, and then the shots started. All in all, he looks pretty relaxed from the time the car left the airport until the first shot.


I see the best evidence of conspiracy in the film, which shows, to me, the sequence of shots as I described above. I believe despite what acoustics and witnesses say, no shots were fired until around Z 225. I think the film simply shows him looking over to the left quickly when those ladies yelled at him, he looked over to wave, and had dropped his arm down when the throat shot hit him:




Then people like David Josephs are actually using witness statements to try to prove this thread as correct. Like Truly's statement where he said the limo almost turned too wide. Oh really? Watch the Towner film and the stripes on the street. Looks like he made a pretty good turn to me. These people were not standing around saying, "OMG, here come the shots!" They were there to see the president and it happened very, very quickly - 6 seconds in fact - so memory is not going to be something these people could rely on 100%.


Yet, there are people on this thread who are looking *everywhere* for conspiracy to bolster their claims. It's ridiculous.


I remember working with 8mm back in 1985 for my college film class project. I actually attempted to make a stop motion animation sequence. Then I remember cutting the film and taping it during editing. It's silly to think that people were sitting around manipulating this film on Friday night of 11/22 when no one even knew what the game plan was going to be.


The suppression this valuable piece of evidence started the night of 11/25 when Dan Rather completely left the violent backward and to the left movement out of his "objective" reporting of what he saw in the film. And then it goes on from there. Do you really think Dan Rather had left that out innocently? His further career record about this case speaks for itself.


The more ridiculous this thread gets the more it makes the serious research community of the case look like kooks and crackpots. I think this thread should be closed for good but it won't because Chris Davidson keeps adding silly math formulas to it so the 10k views keeps it ranked high up.


It's amazing to me that no one has taken the time to read my threads elsewhere - just because I don't believe in the silliness of this thread they make me out to be a Lone Nut believer. I've been a CT-er since 1975.

Edited by Michael Walton
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hum, Dee Dum, Dee Dum, Dee Dum, Dee Dum, Dee Dum, Dee O !!!


Uhh, your point, Chris? Just because you bought into what this surveyor wrote about in an interview written by Marrs doesn't make it so. Just like what Truly said about the "Oh, um, the limo almost rode up onto the curb" in his statement. Do you see that in the Towner film? I don't.


As for the "matter exiting the rear," yes, I agree. It's the main reason why Mrs. Kennedy climbed onto the back of the car, to retrieve, in her shocked state, whatever was back there. And then Hill described what he saw, one of the best witnesses to observe things before any doctor touched the body or laid him flat in the trauma room:


The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head...


But as for this thread, you're all over the place, cutting and pasting quotes, adding geometric figures and math formulas. It's moving deeply into Fetzer way-out-in-left-field territory. Then David Josephs comes up with something else silly - "Right, right, Chris, I concur Chris and there's this, don't forget this..." - and then there's David Healy making snide remarks if someone like me disagrees.


I made a point about how in the 70's, film technology was still cutting and taping like it was in the 60's and used Bob Fosse as an example when he was editing Cabaret. It doesn't mean I like Fosse. Then Healy comes in "Oh, we need to leave Fosse's crapola alone here, thank you very much, 'nuff said." I mean, WTF? Does he even have basic reading comprehension skills?


You may think this thread is helping other researchers but it's not. It's moved into absurdist territory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You may think this thread is helping other researchers but it's not. It's moved into absurdist territory.

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...

Greer-headturn-301-2-3_zpsppf6uduw.gif

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

Greer%20looks%20at%20JFK_zpscljkuwwl.jpg

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...

Z153%20and%20Z156%20JFK%20position%20heaOr 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.

Chaney%20statement%20with%20Sorrels%20an

Link to post
Share on other sites

Distances.jpg

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

The length of the limo is 21.34ft.

Purvis.jpg

Correct.

Using the true length of the limo at 21.34ft exactly, not 21.3ft, and the distances in that same graphic, what equation would = 39.66ft?

Looking at CE884, the station# for shot#1 could easily be 3+81.34, just rounded off as the rest to the nearest tenth's place.

Edited by Chris Davidson
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...