Michael Walton Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 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. Yes, thank you. I'm quietly confident about my beliefs in this case. I believe in science but sometimes you have to go by instinct too. Cops do this all the time - they go with their hunch. Sometimes they're wrong and sometimes they're right. So you actually think that because Greer says he didn't see anything that it's a conspiracy? Try looking ahead and very quickly turning your head around to the same position as you see him in the Z film, then look forward again. And try driving a car while doing that. Then put a head like Connally's in front of your rear view. It looks to me that Greer is telling the truth - that he didn't see anything. And remember - this was happening very quickly. How old was Greer - mid-50s? Yes it was his job to drive the limo and guard the president, but I say no one - and I mean no one - was extra alert and cautious that day, especially after seeing nothing but cheers and smiles from the airport until the plaza. I don't know what you're seeing in the Hargis segment of your post above. Here's the frames in a GIF: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxVUt6X2NWR1dJc2c The little girl running and the guy stepping back onto the curb look normal to me. Yes, there are some damaged frames but watch the above - doesn't seem sinister or altered to me. Your jumble of pictures of the motorcade and the statements don't make any sense. You've got Sorrels saying something, then a cop photo with a quote, then Altgens and frames from the film looking up Elm Street. I consider myself an astute researcher but if I don't understand your photos and statements, how do you expect someone new at this case to understand? I think this is what I meant in an earlier post - you're seeing what you want to see and you're all over the place, with Greer's statement, a damaged frame from Life, the cop's statement, and so on. Here's a challenge for you. See if you can tell what's different between the two versions of the Zapruder film: https://youtu.be/SFYBgJEE9jo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 61' - 21.34' = 39.66' - 21.34 = 18.32' (any meaning?) 419.71' - 419.07' = .64' x 18.3 = 11.71' up Elm 4+65.3 - 11.71 = 4+53.59 which appears to me as the spot JFK would have been when the front bumper reaches extant 313 on the street. 4+65.3 at 421.75' (JFK) - 3.27 = 418.41' (street) 4+65.3 - 4+53.59 = 11.71 / 18.3 = .64 so street elevation at JFK when front bumper is at 4.65.3 is (418.41 + .64 = 419.05) I'm just thinking out loud here - anything you can do to help... ------- As for Shot #1 at 3+81.34.... If we place the rear bumper at 207 instead of JFK, then JFK is at 3+81.34 (not sure if this is what you were looking for - I still do not comprehend the 81.34 unless we're talking rear bumper ?) 21.34 - 15.2 = 6.14' (JFK to rear Bumper) (z207) shown as 3+71.1 at JFK elevation 427.02 - 3.27 = street level 423.75' (not 423.07') 423.75 - 423.07 = .68 x 18.3 = JFK position at 207 is 12.44' further up Elm using the correct elevation 3+71.1 - 12.44' = 3+58.66 Rear bumper at 3+58.44 plus 21.34 = 3+79.78 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. please clarify Chris... I've confused myself here.... lol I see the 10.2' difference between 3+71.1 & 3+81.34 but I forget where the 10.2' comes from in you work... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 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. Yes, thank you. I'm quietly confident about my beliefs in this case. I believe in science but sometimes you have to go by instinct too. Cops do this all the time - they go with their hunch. Sometimes they're wrong and sometimes they're right. So you actually think that because Greer says he didn't see anything that it's a conspiracy? "it's a conspiracy" ought to be obvious to all by now Mike. The facts are simple - in 1/9 second can a person move their head that distance? According to the experiments performed on young athletes knowing there were going to spin their heads, Noel Twyman found it was not possible by a 50% margin and more. All this suggests (with a few hundred other suggestions in the evidence) all it says is that there are frames missing within the 2 frame movement we are seeing. Same thing for 157/158 Try looking ahead and very quickly turning your head around to the same position as you see him in the Z film, then look forward again. And try driving a car while doing that. Then put a head like Connally's in front of your rear view. It looks to me that Greer is telling the truth - that he didn't see anything. And remember - this was happening very quickly. How old was Greer - mid-50s? Yes it was his job to drive the limo and guard the president, but I say no one - and I mean no one - was extra alert and cautious that day, especially after seeing nothing but cheers and smiles from the airport until the plaza. Nice of you to make excuses for the man - the same man who basically stops the car in the middle of a shooting gallery and watches as JFK's head explodes.. I don't know what you're seeing in the Hargis segment of your post above. Here's the frames in a GIF: Hargis is not the focus of any graphic I posted - he's in the "Greer looking at JFK" image and is referenced related to Chaney, the final graphic https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxVUt6X2NWR1dJc2c The little girl running and the guy stepping back onto the curb look normal to me. Yes, there are some damaged frames but watch the above - doesn't seem sinister or altered to me. Chris has already shown you how you could not know what was or wasn't removed from a 48fps film... Add the fact you are looking at a stabilized version or single frame gifs and yeah, it's supposed to "look" normal - but that is where the math proves what we are seeing does not jive with what is being offered as supporting evidence Your jumble of pictures of the motorcade and the statements don't make any sense. You've got Sorrels saying something, then a cop photo with a quote, then Altgens and frames from the film looking up Elm Street. I consider myself an astute researcher but if I don't understand your photos and statements, how do you expect someone new at this case to understand? Someone new is not coming at this with your preconceived biases Mike. They read, analyze and decide if it makes sense or not. This thread in particular is NOT for the newbies. If you were all that astute you'd realize this as well as understand what we're doing. I think this is what I meant in an earlier post - you're seeing what you want to see and you're all over the place, with Greer's statement, a damaged frame from Life, the cop's statement, and so on. And you refuse to learn what you simply don't wanna know... take a step back, forget what you've already concluded and let the information do the talking. I've majored in math and finance and still am having a tough time with Chris' work as he sees the info so much more clearly than I do - just cause I don't get everything doesn't mean it's automatically wrong as you would have us believe. Here's a challenge for you. See if you can tell what's different between the two versions of the Zapruder film: I'll take a look when I get a chance... https://youtu.be/SFYBgJEE9jo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted July 1, 2016 Author Share Posted July 1, 2016 61' - 21.34' = 39.66' ------- That equation is correct. Do you believe Shaneyfelt moving the shot location from shot #3 to shot #2 (look at the SS/FBI plat and post #240) - 39.66ft is a direct correlation to the equation 61' - 21.34ft = 39.66' up the street, even though Tom P. states it was an erroneous assumption on Shaneyfelt's part, down the street? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 61' - 21.34' = 39.66' ------- That equation is correct. Do you believe Shaneyfelt moving the shot location from shot #3 to shot #2 (look at the SS/FBI plat and post #240) - 39.66ft is a direct correlation to the equation 61' - 21.34ft = 39.66' up the street, even though Tom P. states it was an erroneous assumption on Shaneyfelt's part, down the street? Ain't nothing erroneous about it. But I'm still missing the exact meaning. There was never a "real shot 3" location - 4+96 or 5+04 was their only other choice since he could not be hit until 190 once he makes the turn onto Elm. There's be no room on Elm to put a 3rd shot after 190 and before 313 which is the problem we see in the NPIC paperwork. LIFE tried 264 yet there is nothing at 264 to suggest a shot there, NPIC tried 242 - the consensus for the JC shot but again, no evidence of a shot there unless they saw a differently number film. The fact that the limo length plus the move distance equals 61', and they moved a fictitious shot up the street 39.66' to the extant 313 location means.... ??? please fill in that blank for me Chris - thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Here's a challenge for you. See if you can tell what's different between the two versions of the Zapruder film: Starting at about 341 in the first film there are two Altgens' trying to take a picture while walking backward... What's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted July 1, 2016 Author Share Posted July 1, 2016 (edited) 61' - 21.34' = 39.66' ------- That equation is correct. Do you believe Shaneyfelt moving the shot location from shot #3 to shot #2 (look at the SS/FBI plat and post #240) - 39.66ft is a direct correlation to the equation 61' - 21.34ft = 39.66' up the street, even though Tom P. states it was an erroneous assumption on Shaneyfelt's part, down the street? Ain't nothing erroneous about it. But I'm still missing the exact meaning. There was never a "real shot 3" location - 4+96 or 5+04 was their only other choice since he could not be hit until 190 once he makes the turn onto Elm. There's be no room on Elm to put a 3rd shot after 190 and before 313 which is the problem we see in the NPIC paperwork. LIFE tried 264 yet there is nothing at 264 to suggest a shot there, NPIC tried 242 - the consensus for the JC shot but again, no evidence of a shot there unless they saw a differently number film. The fact that the limo length plus the move distance equals 61', and they moved a fictitious shot up the street 39.66' to the extant 313 location means.... ??? please fill in that blank for me Chris - thanks The move of 39.66ft starts from the Altgen's location at station # 4+96.16. 496.16- 39.66 = station # 4+56.5 The extant z313 headshot is at station# 4+65.3 The difference is 8.8ft between the two locations. Two shots at 8.8ft apart could be one interpretation. 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? Edited July 2, 2016 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 (edited) What's your point? Here's my point. Because you completely disagree about the authenticity of the film, you used all of your experience with the current *authentic* version of the film to find an obvious and blatant fake, the one you see above. Nice going. You will now go back to this thread and continue to believe that you are finding evidence of fakery in the film. But you're not using that common sense approach you used to find the fake one above. Your mind's eye (yes, there is such a thing) will continue to cloud your judgment and the more quotes you read in the WC and the more photos you look at, that mind's eye will keep taking you further and further from the truth - that the current version of the Z film, the one in my video that has *not* been faked, is authentic. Because you've lost your ability to think critically about the film, you're now seeing conspiracy everywhere. And I have bad news for you - it's NOT everywhere. I'll be the first to admit that I used to think the man in the doorway was Oswald. But all the while, my non mind's eye would say, "Yes, it looks like him but it's *not* him. It only looks like him." I finally decided to not be too silly about this, that it's not him but Lovelady. Even though I know that there was a massive conspiracy to kill President Kennedy, it's important too to not lose your critical thinking about the case. Then, the work on PM convinced me once and for all. It convinced me that the guy leaning over is Lovelady. The "guy holding something" does look like Oswald but we'll never know with 100% certainty until we get clearer footage. So the point is this - our mind's eye does play tricks with our ability to think critically. This thread is a perfect example of it, of letting your mind's eye get the better of you. This is my Swan Song on Swan Song. No amount of reasoning with you and Chris will convince either of you otherwise that you're chasing your tails with all of this math, WC quote pasting, and photo grabbing. And the other example is the other gentleman's post where he keeps posting so-called hidden word puzzles. Excitingly for you and Chris, so many people have looked at this thread that there's no doubt you will continue to post here to keep the rankings high and the HOT next to it on the home page. But I think what you, Chris and others are doing with this post is truly shameful. I come here to learn new things about this case but this thread is a perfect example of why the outside world laughs at us and calls us kooks, crackpots, and bat-$%^& loons. Edited July 2, 2016 by Michael Walton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted July 2, 2016 Author Share Posted July 2, 2016 Excitingly for you and Chris, so many people have looked at this thread that there's no doubt you will continue to post here to keep the rankings high and the HOT next to it on the home page. But I think what you, Chris and others are doing with this post is truly shameful. I come here to learn new things about this case but this thread is a perfect example of why the outside world laughs at us and calls us kooks, crackpots, and bat-$%^& loons. Excitingly for us, we no longer have to listen to your drivel. A going away present for you. Enjoy, using your critical thinking skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 (edited) You will now go back to this thread and continue to believe that you are finding evidence of fakery in the film. But you're not using that common sense approach you used to find the fake one above. I found Altgens cause it doesn't fit. I see the removal of frames when movement doesn't fit. And they happen at critical times in the film as well - no real surprise. What I object to is some need you seem to have to comment on this topic, "MATH RULES", with anecdotes and "Gotta be's" about your observations and our waste of time....as if you are the self appointed conscious of the forum. You've added nothing to this thread Mike. Zero, other than to be contrary with little backing you. If you can comment on the Math, please chime right in fellow traveler... but if you don't even understand the MATH and comment only to be argumentative... why bother? You think the FBI & SS and Robert West just pulled these figures out of their behinds? Evidence was changed for reasons that seem to elude you. So rather than just cursing the darkness, go find some light buddy.... Chris and I have been at this a while and will be well after you move on to another subject... But, hey, thanks for letting us know what we're wrong about and why... as my dad tells me, always consider the source. Early Saturday morning, around 2am in DC, the SS Chief and the FBI's senior most staff had a Zapruder film in their possession - while Abe slept. Dino gets an 8mm film original Sat night, McMahon a 16mm film original Sunday night - or they both thought from the films with which they were working. Two different films with 2 different crews within 2 days of the assassination. Move along folks, nothing to see here... move along... Edited July 2, 2016 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Bojczuk Posted July 3, 2016 Share Posted July 3, 2016 "I think what you, Chris and others are doing with this post is truly shameful. I come here to learn new things about this case but this thread is a perfect example of why the outside world laughs at us and calls us kooks, crackpots, and bat-$%^& loons." Anyone who hadn't read the first post in this thread, which contains the sentence, "Zfilm alteration equation coming up", probably wouldn't have much of an idea what this endless parade of mathematics was about. It would be nice if each formula was accompanied by some sort of explanation of its significance, although it's easy to understand why this hasn't been done. There's an amusing critique of this nonsense here: http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13311095-albert-doyle?page=12 As Michael Walton implies, public perception of the JFK assassination debate is liable to be affected negatively by what goes on in forums such as this. The crazier the theories that are being promoted, the less credible the genuine critics of the lone-nut hypothesis will seem to be. Imagine that you are a newcomer to this case, curious to discover exactly what the arguments are, and this is what you find: All the shots were fired from the front. JFK's corpse was magically whisked away from Air Force One, without anyone noticing, so that surgeons could manufacture evidence of shots from behind. As for the shot that hit Governor Connally in the back, we'll ignore that and hope that no-one notices. JFK wasn't actually killed in Dealey Plaza. He is still alive in the basement of Parkland Hospital, possibly accompanied by Elvis Presley. The person known as 'Lee Harvey Oswald' was actually two unrelated people, 'Harvey' and 'Lee', who had been picked out as young boys by the CIA, in the hope that when they grew up they would turn out to look sufficiently alike to fool their families, though not so much alike as to fool an amateur investigator. JFK's driver, who was sitting to his left, somehow managed to shoot JFK in the right side of the head despite not having a gun in his hand. To eliminate suspicion that Oswald was standing on the TSBD's steps, James Altgens' photograph was altered by superimposing over Oswald's face the face of someone who looked so much like Oswald that it generated suspicion that Oswald was standing on the steps. All of these theories aren't equally crazy. The theory that JFK and Elvis are still alive in the basement of Parkland Hospital seems perfectly reasonable, at least when compared to the others. But all of them are harmful because they reflect a view of how the world works that normal, sane people will not recognise, and because the crazy theories are liable to drown out rational criticism. 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. If anyone still doubts that the Zapruder film is authentic, these two essays by Josiah Thompson should enlighten them: http://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_in_the_Kennedy_Assassination.html http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/29th_Issue/jt_zfilm.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted July 3, 2016 Share Posted July 3, 2016 (edited) To Jeremy Bojczuk: Thanks for the funny post. I had a good laugh over at that parody post. Anyone who hadn't read the first post in this thread, which contains the sentence, "Zfilm alteration equation coming up", probably wouldn't have much of an idea what this endless parade of mathematics was about. It would be nice if each formula was accompanied by some sort of explanation of its significance, although it's easy to understand why this hasn't been done. There's an amusing critique of this nonsense here That's exactly what I said in an earlier post. If you want to post something, do the research off line, put it together, and then post it complete and whole for all to see and debate. This was never done with this thread. And the title is ridiculous - Swan Song - as if "I've got all of the answers here for you, no need to go elsewhere." And then the first post says nothing. What a joke. Chris: Do you even know what the %$#@ you're talking about? Posting a clip of a motorcycle that runs in normal speed and then slows down? What does that have to do with assassination? I'll say this again clearly and on one line below: THERE IS NO SLOW DOWN OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM - THERE IS NO 18 FPS, THEN 48 FPS, THEN 24 FPS IN THE ZAPRUDER FILM. The only good thing I've seen of you on this thread was when you were in Dallas, stood up on the pedestal with a camera like Zapruder's, and filmed the truck going down Elm Street, and you posted it for us to see. I thought that was interesting for if no other reason to just show how that camera's lens has a slight warping effect. But that's all. This thread is an embarrassment to the research community. I don't know if you're a math teacher or what but you seem to like math. Good for you. But you don't even present it in a way that would help anyone with a decent sense of linear thinking understand what the %&*( you're talking about. And at this point, you're basically just carrying on an email conversation with David Josephs. You seem familiar with Google Drive - why not set up a shared Word doc with him and you and him can post to your hearts' content? But to keep posting here over and over again to keep the ranking of this thread high and your photo over in the post by area is doing nothing for serious researchers and just makes someone like me and others look like fools for even being a part of this forum. Edited July 3, 2016 by Michael Walton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 3, 2016 Share Posted July 3, 2016 But that's all. This thread is an embarrassment to the research community. I don't know if you're a math teacher or what but you seem to like math. Good for you. But you don't even present it in a way that would help anyone with a decent sense of linear thinking understand what the %&*( you're talking about. oh you poor boys... can't understand it so it must be something worth attacking... So let me know Mike... who in the "research community" are you hearing this from? When Fetzer moves from intelligent discourse to Sandy Hook was a conspiracy, THAT embarrasses us. And yet somehow we carry on as a group. To anyone who has been on the forums for more than the 10 minutes you've been here, they are quite aware of what we are doing. Just like many are aware of Tom Hume's work on the anagrams... I don't understand it all but that doesn't mean I go forging into a thread where he is discussing his work only to be a $%%^&ing jerk about it like you did here Mike. Besides, who the #$#$ are you anyway. Who appointed you thread nazi anyway? By your own admission you're clueless about the subject matter, the MATH involved. What's the name of the thread again? zfilm alteration of MATH RULES? Maybe someday when you understand what occurred and what actions and activities were necessary to turn the truth into a lie and a lie into a conviction in public opinion, you will not be so critical of other people's work. Better yet - do some of your own work and present it. It's not possible the extant Zfilm shows what actually happened.. The story of Chaney alone negates this let alone all the other problems. So here's a thought - GO DO SOMETHING ELSE since the concepts & equations in this thread are so foreign to you. No matter what you say you cannot undo what the Math shows All your good intentions and "ain't it obvious" BS has still added nothing to anyone's knowledge whereas we are discussing the exisatence of a shot the FBI & SS placed 40 feet, actually 39.66 feet farther down Elm - and then removed it from the records. Go to https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10699and do yourself a favor and read the report of what the FBI concluded before there ever was a Silly Bullet Theory Read Leo Gauthier's testimony Google "Secret Service Max Philips zapruder film" DO something more than whine about a thread you can't comprehend; you have crossed over into sounding childish and annoying just for the sake of hearing your voice, seeing your words. Find something you DO understand and contribute... see, the answer to your and our problem here is simple. Just go away and let those who do get it discuss it like adults without some little kid pulling at our pant legs wondering what's going on... I bet the research community thanks you and they'd be even more happy if you learned just a little about speed, distance, elevation, angles and the extent the FBI and SS went to subvert the evidence. Altgens claims he was 15 feet from JFK when the last bullet hit... z313 does not fit that bill... yet we have z342 when JFK is finally there Do you see evidence of a shot? Do you see how Altgens could claim he was shot at this point? or how about Brehm's statement about the limo barely moving between the shots, 10-12 feet - that's half the limo length. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 3, 2016 Share Posted July 3, 2016 (edited) But to keep posting here over and over again to keep the ranking of this thread high and your photo over in the post by area is doing nothing for serious researchers and just makes someone like me and others look like fools for even being a part of this forum. Chris and I are doing what we've always done... discuss, analyze and uncover relationships - then post the findings. Disagree, fine... make your case. Math and opinion have nothing to do with each other. The over 13,000 views this thread has received seems to suggest some level of interest for those who want to learn something.. only you are complaining here Mikey. Chris has done amazing work unraveling this piece of the conspiracy... too bad there isn't an area we can say that about you - all you seem to ever do is whine, stamp your feet and attack what you can't comprehend... Well done Mike, well done. Edited July 3, 2016 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted July 3, 2016 Author Share Posted July 3, 2016 Chris: Do you even know what the %$#@ you're talking about? Posting a clip of a motorcycle that runs in normal speed and then slows down? What does that have to do with assassination? I'll say this again clearly and on one line below: When you understand the conversion from a 48fps clip to normal speed, then we can talk. Until then, you'll keep believing what your eyes tell you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now