Swan-Song -- Math Rules

[Michael Walton]

Jeremy Bojczuk:

I applaud you with all of your rational, well-thought replies to Chris and Dave on this thread. There are people like them and many others who see conspiracy everywhere. Just recently, when the Dallas sniper shootings took place, folks on this very forum were actually saying, "Oh, well, it happened because they want to take the attention away from HRC's email scandal." I mean, can you imagine!?

Meanwhile, Chris keeps making these silly, ridiculous graphic illustrations like taking the limo and lining it up with Elm Street. I mean, jeez!

The Z film is the best evidence for conspiracy. I'm currently working on a sync video of the reenactment film and the Z film. There is absolutely no way that any shots were fired before 225. None. Do you really think the planners would have taken this risky of a move, to have fired earlier when the tree would have been blocking the shot? If an impostor was really up there firing away before 225, he would have had no shot, yet he would have fired through the tree?

And if there was no one up there (that's what I believe, that the so-called sniper's nest was just a ruse to blame Oswald), would the planners not have known the tree was blocking the view? Of course not. Why put this entire plan in motion only to have screwed it up by, "Oh, yeah, start firing way up on Elm Street even though we know that the 6th floor has a blocked view."

And even more, why in the world would the planners have not shot Kennedy when they had a clear view of him on Houston Street? The answer is very simple - that little section of Elm Street starting at 225 or so was the killing zone. The crowd had really thinned out in that area (compared to Houston and earlier on Elm); they also knew the SS - in the backs of their mind - were saying, "Well, it's almost over..." And of course, it was an ideal place to have multiple shooters from the back and front. And guess what? The Z film recorded it for all time. Is it any wonder why the government wanted to bury away the film for 12 years?

However, I don't agree with you on the shot sequence. Watch the film - shot #1 is to the throat; #2 is in the back; #3 is Connally; #4 and #5 are JFK's kill shots. Keep in mind that by 313, Connally is almost down flat so it'd be very hard to have hit him after 313. Besides, why would they? My hunch has always been they shot Connally to get him out of the way, making a clean shot for Kennedy at 313. That's why there's that little pause after the shots starting at 225. I don't know if it was a happy accident or what for the shooters, but once Connally was shot, he fell over or was grabbed by his wife, opening the door for the kill shots.

Tom Neal:

I'm sorry to say, Tom, but there are no "indisputable experts" in this case, not even the guy who worked at the CIA photo lab. I mean, didn't he say he saw one thing one day and something else the next? And that's an expert?

Chuck Schwartz:

You say that even though you don't quite understand it all with what Chris and Dave are doing here, you encourage them to carry on. Why? It's like you come up to a guy hitting himself on the head over and over with a stick, you ask him why he's doing it, he says, "Because it feels so good when I stop," and then you tell him to carry on. It defies logic when logic is sorely missing on this thread.

Chris and Dave:

All I can say now is this - conspiracy was not everywhere and anywhere in this case and surely not in the Z film. You're now relying on witness statements to back up your silly Math Rules thread. Witness statements and so-called expert testimony is one of the worst things to depend on to bolster a case. There ought to be a cross list of all of the people who testified in a hundred different ways about the same incident.

No matter how wild-eyed you are with this crazy thread - making even more illustrations, backing up and forwarding the frames over and over and over again - it's NOT going to reveal anything.

And ask yourselves this - why...WHY....would the government fake a film and then keep the faked film away from the general public for 12 years? The planners were ballsy enough to fake the back yard photos and then say, "Look what we found," and yet they fake a motion picture film and instead of declaring that the film proves for all-time that only three shots were fired, they instead bury it?

If you can't figure this out then both of you have really, truly lost your way with this topic and no amount of reason is going to convince either of you.

[David Josephs]

Thanks for your reply, David. There are two points I'd like to make. Firstly, the default position with any item of physical evidence has to be that it is authentic. It's up to those who allege fraud to prove their case. That certainly hasn't happened here, since no-one has been able to show a single inconsistency between the Zapruder film and the rest of the photographic evidence that doesn't have a straightforward explanation.

I'm sure you've heard the old saying and the basis for the US criminal law system: Innocent until PROVEN guilty. It's not the other way around. Physical evidence is by no means "authentic by default" - that's absurd. Without Authentication of evidence we wind up with a situation like the Warren Commission. Can you imagine walking into a courtroom and claiming you have the murder weapon, "Trust us, it's the actual weapon"? That you answer your own question - why in the world would the Zfilm we see match the BS evidence we are offered... when in reality it does not. That you simply can't remember, or feign forgetfulness when we offer examples like Chaney's backed by Sorrels, Hargis and Curry. Please show us in the Zfilm or any other image where Chaney does what he is credited with doing by the eye/ear witnesses...

The second point is to do with the use of witness testimony to support allegations of fraud. Over the years, many examples have been cited of witness statements that contradict what is shown in the Zapruder film and in other parts of the photographic record. You yourself mention Marie Muchmore, who apparently claimed not to have captured the shooting, although her film clearly contains several frames taken during the shooting. Earlier, you mentioned Officer Chaney, who claimed to have driven his motorcycle in a way that contradicts what is shown in the Zapruder film.

Again JB, not claimed, and not on an island... his statement is corroborated by numerous people both in DP and the lead car... As for Muchmore, her evidence is what it is JB... she claims she stopped filming and yet we have an amazingly clear and steady version of the headshot...

How are we to interpret these contradictions? Given what is commonly accepted about the fallibility of human memory, the obvious interpretation is that the witnesses were mistaken. It's the principle of Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is the most rational explanation. On the one hand, a witness remembered wrongly; on the other hand, a large amount of work was undertaken in altering a still photograph (such as Altgens 6), or an even larger amount of work was undertaken in altering a home movie.

In most cases I would agree with you JB... But the reality of witness testimony is that it is supposed to support the physical evidence, on a whole, as opposed to contradict it. I'm sorry you don't see how, in 1963 and well before, physical evidence was used by the FBI to convict whoever they wished... You might read a Swearingen book to get a flavor for the FBI's mentality. https://www.amazon.com/FBI-Secrets-M-Wesley-Swearingen/dp/0896085015

If it were a single witness, or a small handful I'd be a bit more skeptical, yet the vast majority of witnesses contradict what the FBI/SS/CIA offer as "physical Evidence". That you are unaware of the wholesale removal of every item of Dallas evidence by the FBI on Fri night only to return more evidence than they took while also insuring the DPD photos of this evidence are all ruined.

It is exactly during a case where government involvement is obvious that the physical evidence needs to come under even more careful review for its authentication. Throwing clichés like Occam's Razor into the JFK assassination illustrates a faith in the DPD/FBI/SS of 1963 that you have offered little to support. No JB, in the JFK/RFK/MLK assassinations, the physical evidence is the main pillar of the conspiracy... Too bad you have not yet come to find that to be the case.

It's only when a photograph or film or other item of physical evidence has already been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be inauthentic, a standard that hasn't even been approached in the case of the Zapruder film, that you should assume that any contradictory statements by witnesses are accurate. To avoid confusion, by 'statement' I'm referring to what a witness actually said, rather than what he or she was reported in a written document to have said.

See, now you seem to be employing a tactic which allows you to completely ignore 20 pages of posts in favor of your disbelief in the evidence which proves alteration, forgery, or a combination of both.

The Horne research into the 2 NPIC events and how they were compartmentalized is some indication of the plans in action. But since you've already decided the film is whole despite it's condition I wonder what it is you are looking for that would convince you of it's inauthenticity?

Does the film not having it's unique identifier 0183" any indication that something significant happened to the in camera original between printing and public examination? Zavada from Kodak acknowledges that the "original" he was given to analyze did not have the 0183 holes punched into any part of the film, and was assumed to be 0183 since the SS copies reviewed had "0183" printed on some part of their length. One of the SS copies does not even have it's 018#

Years ago, there was a perfect example of the problems that arise when too much trust is placed in witness statements. In James Fetzer's Murder in Dealey Plaza (on pp.6-7 of the colour insert after p.324), Jack White wrote that "Mary Moorman and her friend Jean Hill have consistently maintained that they stepped off the curb and into the street to take this photo [Moorman's famous Polaroid, taken immediately after the fatal head shot] ... This puzzled me, since the Zapruder film shows them on the grass, about 2 feet south of the curb." The author then conducted an experiment, taking measurements which led him to conclude that "Mary stepped off the curb to take the photo. Thus, the Z-film is faked."

Unfortunately for the credibility of this theory, Moorman is shown standing on the grass not only in the Zapruder film but also in the Muchmore and Nix films. If we claim that the Bad Guys faked this part of the Zapruder film, we are forced to claim that they also faked the other two films, and we've crossed the border into tin-foil hat territory. You may not be surprised to learn that the 'Moorman in the street' theory was invented by someone who apparently took seriously the idea that the moon landings were faked.

Three years later, Fetzer's The Great Zapruder Film Hoax devoted two whole chapters to what it called "the Moorman controversy." A team of researchers, all of them clever people with lots of letters after their names, went to Dealey Plaza and took more measurements, which provided "powerful evidence that Mary was in the street", in Professor Fetzer's words (p.239).

As it turned out, the measurements were inaccurate (see http://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_-_part_2.html for an illustrated account). More accurate measurements showed that Mary Moorman was actually standing exactly where the Zapruder, Muchmore and Nix films show her to be standing. It was no longer necessary to claim that all three films were faked, and we could put our tin-foil hats away.

You appear to be confusing the theories and work of researchers trying to find examples of film/photo inconsistencies, and the 20 years of work which has been done since the book you are quoting came out. Personally I believe that Jack and Jim offered many good examinations of the evidence and in some I feel they went down the wrong path. Mary Moorman's position and that whole analysis proved that theory wrong... yet this does not negate alteration evidence in the many other locations on the film and in the Math.

From your link: - you see this is a cute dismissal yet does not change the facts, but substituting 308-317 for 302,303,304 is the bigger error. We were talking about the impossible frame 303. I posted the 302 blur to 303 in focus impossibility... and here then are 4 success frames which try to show us that in 1/18th of a second a 55 year old man is able to outperform college athletes. If there is anyone who loses by there being alteration in the film it would be Josiah who pioneered the way to a better understanding yet seems to have decided to stay with information only prior to 1970.

(4) The Zapruder film shows limousine driver Bill Greer turning his head to the rear in an impossibly short period of time (Whoops! Interpretation error!)

Figure 33. David Wimp GIF showing movement of occupants of limousine Z-308 through Z-317

In this case, the rational interpretation was shown to be correct: Mary Moorman, like everyone else, had a less than perfect memory. Interestingly, her official statement on the day of the assassination, which is actually reproduced on p.276 of The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, begins with the words "Mrs Jean Hill and I were standing on the grass ...".

I'm sure you'll agree with me that Professor Fetzer is the perfect figurehead for the 'Zapruder film is fake' community. But even professors make mistakes sometimes. So eager were the researchers to find a conspiracy everywhere they looked, it didn't occur to them to ask why on earth the Bad Guys should have wanted to transplant Mary Moorman and Jean Hill from the street onto the grass. Not only would it give the game away, but it must have generated extra work when fabricating the film. This failure to apply the principle of Occam's Razor caused yet another 'Zapruder film is fake' claim to bite the dust.

Not really JB. Fetzer in this day is not longer considered the figurehead of anything. His demise into crazy with Altgens and other non-JFK theories was a surprise to us all. A sad surprise but a surprise none the less.

Moorman on the grass or not will not make or break our case for alteration one bit. As for Chaney, you changing the subject to offer an example of other anomalies proves yet again your command of the events are truly only skin deep. Scratch a bit at your pre-conceived and pre-determined conclusions and we find the ugliness of government conspiracy.

No JB, it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove guilt with "Real Evidence" - evidence which has been authenticated by one of three processes... look it up.

If the evidence used can be shown inauthentic, it is thrown out of court or deemed circumstantial at best. In our situation here Authentication is easily accomplished or easily shown to be manipulated before and after the fact by primarily the FBI. I'll ask again as you ignored it last time

How fast does Hill need to be running if the limo is going a constant 11.2mph and the distance between the cars is say 10 feet. Hill is on the bumper at the halfway point of the follow-up car...

Mr. SPECTER. When was it that Mrs. Kennedy made the statement which you have described, "My God, what are they doing?"

Mr. KELLERMAN. This occurred after the flurry of shots.

Mr. SPECTER. At that time you looked back and saw Special Agent Hill across the trunk of the car, had your automobile accelerated by that time?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Tremendously so; yes.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, to the best of your ability to recollect, exactly when did your automobile first accelerate?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Our car accelerated immediately on the time-at the time--this flurry of shots came into it.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you say the acceleration--

Mr. KELLERMAN. Between the second and third shot.

There's another shot after the acceleration? After Shot #2? Flurry? What's going on here JB?

[David Josephs]

We all agree on much more than we don't.

Sorry you can't seem to live and let live with others who may disagree with you.

Chris and I will continue deconstructing the creation of the conspiracy's evidence. Combined with Horne's info about the NPIC and the true hour to hour custody of Zfilms I feel confident this work will prove the Zfilm was predominantly filmed at 48fps and cut down to 18.3 as needed.

The film was not "FAKED" Mike, it was altered and created to show what it needed to and then evidence was created to give the film corroboration, as long as one does not look outside this closed loop presentation of evidence.

[Michael Walton]

The film was not "FAKED" Mike, it was altered and created to show what it needed to and then evidence was created to give the film corroboration, as long as one does not look outside this closed loop presentation of evidence.

Isn't this apples and oranges, Dave? Altered, faked, edited, manipulated, created. Come on, you're a smart guy - don't try to answer with a subterfuge. You know what I mean and you know better than that.

I'm not sure who said what about how the limo driver's movements are faked. But I'm going to reply to that. And it's really quite easy to figure out.

If you have fast movement and record it at a very high frame rate, all of those frames are going to capture the fast movement, allowing you to slow the movement down for analysis.

But if you have the same fast movement and record it at only 18 frames per second, then yes, there may be a not entirely clear capture of the movement. But that's all it is. There's no fakery...oops, sorry - ALTERATION - of the film. I've watched that portion of the film numerous times and it does not look like anything was altered. Again, a simple answer for something that's been blown out of proportion.

So I'm not even sure why in the world something like that in the Z film would be held up as alteration/fakery/manipulation.

One other comment Jeremy made up above that I loved and wanted to point out. It's an out of park comment he made - the one where he said that people with a good case can answer something concisely where as people with a bad case go on and on and on with clips of motorcycles, endless math formulas, very long and long-winded responses, and so on.

Beautifully said and oh, so true for this ridiculous thread.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Michael,

Thanks for the comments, and for communicating them clearly (I'll have a go at translating Mr Josephs' latest post into English when I have a couple of hours to spare).

One small point - the car is supposed to have come into view from the sixth-floor window at frame 210, not frame 225.

However, I don't agree with you on the shot sequence. Watch the film - shot #1 is to the throat; #2 is in the back; #3 is Connally; #4 and #5 are JFK's kill shots.

When I mentioned a shot sequence in post 300 I was just giving what I understand to be the standard interpretation of what the Zapruder film shows, which is obviously more shots than the two that are supposed to prove forgery (of course, even if the film did show evidence of only two shots, it still wouldn't prove forgery). Personally, I don't have a strong opinion about exactly how many shots there were, or when each of them was fired. Looking for that level of detail can become a dead end, though not as much of a dead end as looking for evidence that the Zapruder film was faked.

[David Josephs]

The film was not "FAKED" Mike, it was altered and created to show what it needed to and then evidence was created to give the film corroboration, as long as one does not look outside this closed loop presentation of evidence.

Isn't this apples and oranges, Dave? Altered, faked, edited, manipulated, created. Come on, you're a smart guy - don't try to answer with a subterfuge. You know what I mean and you know better than that.

Mike - if you truly don't know the difference between ALTERED and CREATED or FAKED and EDITED what are you even doing here? I am not saying anyone CREATED a film from thin air... I am saying that the film in Zaps camera was not taken at 18.3fps as that setting was not possible. I am saying that for significant portions of the filming, it was done at 48fps with a simple flick of a switch (your knowledge of that B&H camera is unknown). With 3 times as many jumpy frames in certain spots of the film, ALTERATION becomes possible so that it appears like a shot-at-the-time film, but it is not?

I'm not sure who said what about how the limo driver's movements are faked. But I'm going to reply to that. And it's really quite easy to figure out.

If you have fast movement and record it at a very high frame rate, all of those frames are going to capture the fast movement, allowing you to slow the movement down for analysis.

But if you have the same fast movement and record it at only 18 frames per second, then yes, there may be a not entirely clear capture of the movement. But that's all it is. There's no fakery...oops, sorry - ALTERATION - of the film. I've watched that portion of the film numerous times and it does not look like anything was altered. Again, a simple answer for something that's been blown out of proportion.

Again, your understanding and representation of the situation is somewhat flawed. Movement over time is easily analyzed and determined. In Bloody Treason an experiment was conducted to determine the speed at which a healthy, prepared young man can turn his head the distance we see Greer accomplish. By a factor of 50% and more, these men could not reproduce the speed. Dino Brugioni tells us that the headshot bloods platter he saw on his "original" looks nothing like it does in the extent film, that frames must be missing. That everyone simply accepted 18.3fps is the real surprise. That 12% difference begins to make the film look a little slower than a normal 16fps film when shown at 18fps.

So I'm not even sure why in the world something like that in the Z film would be held up as alteration/fakery/manipulation.

One other comment Jeremy made up above that I loved and wanted to point out. It's an out of park comment he made - the one where he said that people with a good case can answer something concisely where as people with a bad case go on and on and on with clips of motorcycles, endless math formulas, very long and long-winded responses, and so on.

Beautifully said and oh, so true for this ridiculous thread.

No one asked that you bring your uninformed opinions into a conversation that remains miles over your head Michael. Yet here you remain with that amazed Dan Quayle look trying to grasp these concepts.

As for JB "translating" my last post - no one will be holding their breath.

Why is it that you cannot address the questions posed to you about the topic of this thread?

Why do you supposed the SS, TIME/LIFE and the FBI performed reenactment after recreation after reenactment when they already had the film? Why do WCD298 if what happened is shown on that film?

Michael or JB - have you bothered to read thru WCD298? Bothered to try and understand from which source materials a shot 40 feet further down Elm than z313 was described so that the FBI would use this evidence to place a shot at the foot of the steps?

The topic is the evidence boys. Showing how the Evidence was manipulated - as Redlich puts it when discussing the Zapruder film conclusion made by the WC prior to even finding out if it's possible. Yet in January, 3 months earlier, the FBI produced a model explaining the whole thing

April 27, 1964

We have not yet examined the assassination scene to determine whether the assassin in fact could have shot the President prior to frame 190.

<snip>

Our intention is not to establish the point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin.

I should add that the facts which we now have in our possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and Secret Service, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will present a completely misleading picture.

Looking now at the images below

Z313 is above the "ic" in Service. There are 4 different locations for the 2nd and 3rd shots that are neither 313 or 225 which we agree show shots hitting.

If the Zfilm we have shows the exact spot of the headshot which was agreed upon as z313... and a number of survey plats were created and altered to arrive at the 2 shot scenario, the SBT and Tague. what are we looking at and where did it come from?

If the Zfilm was authentic, why does the SS and FBI disregard this information and determine USING MATH where certain locations on the limo or on the street shots hit?

If the Zfilm was correct, why was it necessary to move the limo almost 40 feet up Elm for the final shot to work while still calling Z313 the "2nd Shot"

Wouldn't this statement mean that Hill was on the car prior to the third shot since he could not have made it if the limo had already accelerated?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Our car accelerated immediately on the time-at the time--this flurry of shots came into it.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you say the acceleration--

Mr. KELLERMAN. Between the second and third shot.

If the Zfilm was accurate and unaltered - would you please show us where in the film the limo has already accelerated and another shot arrives.

Shot 2 at 262 feet along the 18degree diagonal. Shot 3 "hit the target from a distance of 307 feet, measured downward along a 15 degree angle from horizon. https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/010/10699/images/img_10699_62_300.png

WCD298 has all the measurements and all the sneakiness of the FBI. Leo Gauthier switched the info on the legend, sealed the survey and entered into evidence MATH which does not support the film.

So you know, what we are doing here is to simply unravel the process which tries to make the world of physics irrelevant.. so that moving objects can be in the same place at two different times, how many shots became 3 which then became 2, and so on.

Don't like this game? fine. move on and find a game in that you'd like to contribute. But every single day you seem drawn to this thread with some desire to tell us we're wasting time, yet here you are wasting it right along with us for that matter. So keep cursing the darkness rather than light a candle and learn something... just do it somewhere else for a change.

Unless you simply can't help yourself.

Edited July 15, 2016 by David Josephs

[Chris Davidson]

David,

They're still trying to figure out post #266.

Your answer is much more appropriate: "it was done at 48fps with a simple flick of a switch"

All one had to do was press down on that switch (til it hit bottom) and hold.

The easiest motion of all.

They need to start their own topic, and stop increasing my view count.

[Michael Walton]

Here are some Jeremy highlights, ones which I concur with, and ones that neither Chris nor Dave have STILL answered. Instead they revert to the typical tropes of "you don't understand English" and "they need to start a new thread," when it was Chris, with his wonderfully apt starting thread of "coming..." that got this whole train wreck started

That's what makes the whole 'Zapruder film is faked' thing so bizarre and laughable. The Bad Guys went to all this trouble to fake the film, but they forgot to replace the parts that undermine the lone-nut hypothesis. Whoops! They only faked the parts they didn't need to fake. Silly Bad Guys! And having incompetently faked the film to fool the public, they didn't force it on the public at every opportunity. Instead, they kept it out of the public's view for as long as they could.

Exactly, Jeremy. But neither Chris or Dave have an answer for this.

The point Michael Walton made is that the way the argument is presented, as a long series of unexplained, cryptic equations, is a terrible way to communicate a sound argument. It is, however, a good way to disguise a weak argument. This method may work with the faithful, but if you want to convince open-minded non-believers, you need to set out the case for alteration in a way that makes it as easy as possible for people to follow.

Their constant reply to this is "just go away...start your own thread." What a joke.

You could begin by telling us in plain English exactly which elements of the Zapruder film you consider not to be authentic. Did the Bad Guys fake the whole thing, including all those frames that undermine the lone-nut hypothesis? If not, precisely which frames have been tampered with? The less vague you can make it, the less like paranoid wishful thinking your case will seem to be.

The most you'll get is "you just don't understand anything here" and "you're just too stupid to understand anything about this." Yeah, right.

Here is Chris's reply to Chuck, which was probably the most concise and to the point answer he's ever given on this thread:

Chuck,

For now, I'll state that early on in the government investigations, they realized there was more than one shooter. Hence the manipulation of data to put one person in the 6th floor snipers nest.

Manipulation of data? What on Earth could you possibly mean here, Chris? And then how could this "manipulation" then extend over to a film? Oh, boy!

And here is one of Chris's more recent greatest hits:

Your answer is much more appropriate: "it was done at 48fps with a simple flick of a switch"

So you're thinking that a guy in his mid 50s was standing up on the pedestal, probably nervous as all heck as he waits for the motorcade to go by, and when it starts, he actually had the presence of mind to be pressing the button to change the film rate mid-recording? Haha! Absolutely laughable. He could barely hold the camera still and yet, we're expected to believe, "Oh right HERE is where I want some old 48 FPS, and then right HERE I'm putting it back to 18." OMG, Chris.

DAVE (criticizing my word usage) - Mike - if you truly don't know the difference between ALTERED and CREATED or FAKED and EDITED what are you even doing here?

Hey, Dave, I've not read a one post of you criticizing your buddy Chris's use of the word "manipulation" (see above when he used it). So which is it? Manipulated (his) or altered (yours)?

Edited July 16, 2016 by Michael Walton

[Chris Davidson]

So you're thinking that a guy in his mid 50s was standing up on the pedestal, probably nervous as all heck as he waits for the motorcade to go by, and when it starts, he actually had the presence of mind to be pressing the button to change the film rate mid-recording? Haha! Absolutely laughable. He could barely hold the camera still and yet, we're expected to believe, "Oh right HERE is where I want some old 48 FPS, and then right HERE I'm putting it back to 18." OMG, Chris.

All one had to do was press down on that switch (til it hit bottom) and hold.

I see. First throw in your subjective Zapruder garbage, then, display your lack of reading comprehension by mis-interpreting what I said.

Let me know when you've figured out your debris conundrum.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Our resident 'Zapruder film is fake' enthusiasts have been remarkably unwilling to provide a clear description of exactly which parts of the film they consider to be fake. I get the impression that most of the contributors to James Fetzer's The Great Zapruder Film Hoax think that the entire thing is a fabrication. I've found some evidence which suggests that David, at least, agrees with them.

In post 288, he writes

You've seen the Muchmore film right? You aware that repeatedly she says she simply did not film the shooting part of the assassination ... The person credited with the film says she did not take it. Yet as we both know the Muchmore frames are amazingly clear and focused on JFK.

As usual, he doesn't state specifically what he thinks the extent of the forgery is, but I think it's possible to work out what he's getting at:

1. Marie Muchmore repeatedly said that she did not film the shooting.
2. Her film shows the shooting.
3. Therefore the images of the shooting must have been placed into the film by parties unknown for some undefined purpose.

This isn't a matter of removing the occasional frame or applying a spot of coloured dye here and there. If you'll pardon the pun, it's Muchmore than that: the Bad Guys essentially fabricated the whole of the shooting sequence that we see on the film. If David considers the Muchmore film to be a complete fabrication, I'd guess he considers the Zapruder film to be a complete fabrication too. After all, if the Bad Guys had the ability to do one, they surely had the ability to do both. And since the Nix film agrees with the other two films, which we now know for a fact to be complete fabrications, the Bad Guys must have completely fabricated the Nix film too!

At this point, everyone will be slapping their foreheads and wondering how on earth anyone could be so far removed from reality. If the three films depict the shooting sequence, and there are no obvious inconsistencies between them, the only rational conclusion is that what we see in the three films is what actually happened, and that Marie Muchmore, like Mary Moorman, simply misremembered what she had done during those traumatic few seconds.

Incidentally, one inconsistency between the Nix and Zapruder films was suggested but then debunked in the comments section at http://jfkfacts.org/rewinding-the-zapruder-film/.

Marie Muchmore's experiences are covered in chapter 7 of Richard Trask's excellent book, Pictures of the Pain. Trask found only one instance of her claim not to have filmed the shooting, in a brief report by the FBI agent Robert Basham on 4 December 1963. She was interviewed by the FBI again a couple of months later (see Commission Document 5, p.8), but did not mention anything about what she had, or had not, filmed. I suspect that the Bad Guys had got to her by then. Either that, or Commission Document 5 has been faked as well.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Also in post 288, David writes:

Horne's famous "Hollywood 7" have seen the best version of the film, a 35mm frame by frame copy from which they state that this black square appears to hover over the frame.

I've seen references here and there to the mysterious 'Hollywood 7' group of film experts who were supposed to be providing definitive proof that the Zapruder film has been faked, but I haven't yet found an account of their conclusions. David's comment implies that they have at last gone public with their proof. I'd like to examine their reasoning, but, unlike David, I haven't read their account. Could anyone point me towards this account, if it exists online?

[Michael Walton]

All one had to do was press down on that switch (til it hit bottom) and hold.

Oh, Chris I'm so glad you finally unmasked what you're basing all of this garbage on - that somehow, some way - Zapruder intentionally or accidentally pressed the "increase frame rate" button on his camera as the motorcade was going by?

Guess what? I can yell too and you're going to love it...

Bawwwaaaa!!! What a humongous load of BS!

You can't possibly be serious, can you, Chris?! Where are you seeing this?! I mean it's absolutely and completely ridiculous that whatever it is you're seeing is just utter garbage.

You're seeing things. Anyone with a decent amount of sanity can you tell you're imagining things! The man was a mid-50s dressmaker, Chris. He probably didn't even know what the %%%% that button was for on the camera, never mind would he dare to press it during a presidential motorcade going by.

We're talking mere seconds as the car goes by and how do we even know that the camera motor would have the ability to seamlessly ramp up the frame rate mid-shooting and do so without any jerkiness in the exposed film?

Even today in Hollywood, do you not realize, Chris, that in a Hollywood movie when they want to show something in ultra slow motion, they carefully stage this. They put the high speed camera in place or take their standard camera and ramp it up. Then they yell "action" and record the scene. Then in editing they can play around with the different frame rates in their editing software, slowing it down or speeding it up on the timeline. They don't shoot this by changing the frame rate mid-shooting, Chris.

And now, you're big reveal - after 16,000 views and 310 replies on this thread - is that using a 1960's consumer film camera, little old Mr. Zapruder was up there changing frame rates smoothly and like a grizzled Hollywood veteran while the President's car was going by?

OMG! Un - freaking - believable!

Jeremy - nice job on your #310 post. Very well said.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Michael Walton

[Ray Mitcham]

Just mid 50's dressmaker?

Abraham Zapruder- White Russian affiliation, 32nd degree Mason, active MEMBER of 2 CIA Proprietary Organizations,

The Dallas Council On World Affairs,

The Crusade For A Free Europe

These two organizations were CIA (backed) Domestic Operations in Dallas whose membership included:

Abraham Zapruder,

Clint Murchison,

The Texas School Book Depository's owner Mr. Byrd(?),

Mrs. Sarah Hughes, who swore L.B.J. in as President while Air Force One was still on the ground in Dallas,

George DeMohrenschildt (CIA contract agent and best friend of LHO),

George Bush (also good friend of DeMohrenschildt),

Neil Newan (mentor that Bush named his son, Neil, after),

H. L. Hunt,

Demitri Von Mohrenschildt (George D's brother).

http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Zapruder/821.html

[Michael Walton]

RAY - Just mid 50's dressmaker?

Abraham Zapruder- White Russian affiliation, 32nd degree Mason, active MEMBER of 2 CIA Proprietary Organizations,

Ray, please. He could be Lee Oswald wrapped in George deM's clothes and surrounded by Jack Ruby's sport coat and it doesn't change the fact that you cannot do what I'm describing above or what Chris Davidson thinks he did.

Please stick to the point of the thread - that Chris Davidson has finally revealed that this entire thread's theory is based on the extremely faulty logic that Zapruder was up there confidently and magically changing the frame rate of his consumer camera, when the man could barely hold the camera still when Kennedy went by.

I mean, watch the film. He almost did not record the head shots as he had the camera tilted up almost too much. This is the exact same thing that happened with that woman who filmed the motorcade from I think the 4th floor window - she was so excited, she stopped looking into the viewfinder to look at what was happening, ruining the entire sequence.

Believe me when I say I've shot hundreds of special event videos throughout my career for paying customers where I had to get the shot right the first time (no retakes) and your mind is busy focusing on the subject in the viewfinder.

And we're expected to believe that Zapruder had complete control of the situation changing the frame rate when he almost tilted up too much during the head shots?

Edited July 17, 2016 by Michael Walton

[Chris Davidson]

Anybody with half a brain can press and hold the button down in the bottom position.

I guess Zapruder was unable to distinguish between "run" and "slow motion", what is that, an eighth of an inch apart.

Talk about a warped sense of what's possible.

Here's a nice photo of the frame rate switch.

Now everyone can determine for themselves, how difficult it was, to film continuously at 48fps (slow-motion) mode.