Swan-Song -- Math Rules

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

The Evidence in the Zapruder Film

It was alleged in post 270 that the Zapruder film is "the most important piece of case evidence used to implicate LHO as the **sole** assassin of JFK and the SBT." I pointed out in post 285 that the Zapruder film actually contains next to no evidence which implicates Oswald and supports the single-bullet theory, but it does contain much stronger evidence to the contrary: it seems to show that Connally was hit after Kennedy had already been hit, and that the head shot came from the front, and it necessitates the improbable claim that three shots were fired in less than six seconds. I pointed out that much of this evidence is found only in the Zapruder film.

It was alleged in post 288 that because the Zapruder and Muchmore films contradict the accounts of several eye-witnesses, both films must have been altered. I pointed out in post 299 that when there is a conflict between an eye-witness and an item of photographic evidence, the only rational conclusion is that the witness must be mistaken, unless it has already been proven on other grounds that the photographic evidence is inauthentic, which certainly hasn't happened with the Zapruder film. Eye-witness evidence cannot be used to support the theory that the Zapruder film has been faked.

It was alleged in post 288 that the Zapruder film does not contain evidence that more than three shots were fired, and that consequently the film must have been altered. I pointed out in post 300 that the film actually contains evidence consistent with at least four shots having been fired: yet another way in which the Zapruder film contradicts the lone-nut hypothesis.

Consequences of Forgery

The film as we know it clearly supports the proposition that more than one gunman was involved in the assassination. If the Zapruder film has been faked, it can only have been faked by concealing genuine evidence favourable to the lone-nut hypothesis and by creating fake evidence pointing to a conspiracy. This is, to put it mildly, not very likely.

I've pointed out in several posts that no-one has yet identified a single discrepancy between the Zapruder film and the rest of the photographic record that doesn't have a straightforward explanation. Consequently, if the Zapruder film was faked, much of the rest of the photographic record must have been faked too, a notion that is about as plausible as the moon landings having been faked (which at least one prominent 'Zapruder film is fake' enthusiast seems to have believed), or Elvis Presley being the gunman on the grassy knoll.

Paranoid Fantasies

What are we left with? That the Zapruder film contradicts the measurements and shooting sequences suggested by the FBI or the CIA or the Secret Service? I'm sure everyone can see the answer to that one: just as eye-witnesses can be unreliable, so can members of official agencies. Whether by accident or design, the agencies got some of their measurements and shooting sequences wrong. Big deal! With the realisation that the agencies were not infallible, the last surviving element of the case for forgery disappears in a puff of smoke.

All these equations claiming that the limousine was 49' 3" north-south-west of the faked photo of Neil Armstrong at Robert West's hypotenuse of station 3.142, or whatever, are just hot air. It's like discussing how many angels you can fit on a pinhead, when you haven't yet produced a single piece of credible evidence that angels actually exist.

I know what you're going to say: "But the Bad Guys can't make mistakes! They are all-powerful! I really like conspiracies! Please don't take my conspiracy away!" To which the obvious reply is that the Zapruder film provides plenty of evidence that more than one gunman took part in the assassination. That's your conspiracy, not some made-up nonsense about faked films. You can have one or the other, but not both.

Winners and Losers

Let's look at who benefits from this paranoid desire to construct imaginary conspiracies:

• If you claim that the Zapruder film has been faked, you are implying that evidence contradicting the lone-nut hypothesis should be discarded. Much of this evidence is found nowhere else. In whose interests would it be to discard this evidence?
• If you claim that the Zapruder film has been faked, you're wasting your time on a nonsensical dead-end. Your time would surely be better spent doing something productive, such as criticising the lone-nut hypothesis on rational grounds. In whose interests is it to divert people away from making worthwhile criticisms of the lone-nut hypothesis?
• If you claim that the Zapruder film has been faked, you are reinforcing the public perception that everyone who criticises the lone-nut hypothesis is a tin-foil hat-wearing paranoid fantasist, and that the JFK assassination is not a subject worthy of serious discussion. Again, in whose interests is this?

[Michael Walton]

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

He didn't do it, Chris. Watch the film. There is absolutely no evidence he threw those switches mid-shooting. Watch the frames one at a time - where are all of the additional frames? They don't exist because he didn't do it.

An absolutely ridiculous, faulty, pie-in-the-sky, way-out-in-left-field, "Fetzerous" theory, Chris.

[Chris Davidson]

Copied and pasted as a response to post #316.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Chris Davidson

[Chris Davidson]

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

He didn't do it, Chris. Watch the film. There is absolutely no evidence he threw those switches mid-shooting. Watch the frames one at a time - where are all of the additional frames? They don't exist because he didn't do it.

An absolutely ridiculous, faulty, pie-in-the-sky, way-out-in-left-field, "Fetzerous" theory, Chris.

Additional frames!!! You still have not figured out what was accomplished in post #266.

Try converting a slow-motion movie to normal speed using only the progressive frames.

Mid-shooting!!! Comprehension- Read what I write, not what you interpret me saying.

I've given you examples of how it was done on film. You don't get it. Or you just don't want to see what's in front of you.

Your own "zfilm is genuine" belief contradicts what is shown on the film after the extant z313 headshot.

[Chris Davidson]

The Evidence in the Zapruder Film

It was alleged in post 270 that the Zapruder film is "the most important piece of case evidence used to implicate LHO as the **sole** assassin of JFK and the SBT." I pointed out in post 285 that the Zapruder film actually contains next to no evidence which implicates Oswald and supports the single-bullet theory, but it does contain much stronger evidence to the contrary: it seems to show that Connally was hit after Kennedy had already been hit, and that the head shot came from the front, and it necessitates the improbable claim that three shots were fired in less than six seconds. I pointed out that much of this evidence is found only in the Zapruder film.

It was alleged in post 288 that because the Zapruder and Muchmore films contradict the accounts of several eye-witnesses, both films must have been altered. I pointed out in post 299 that when there is a conflict between an eye-witness and an item of photographic evidence, the only rational conclusion is that the witness must be mistaken, unless it has already been proven on other grounds that the photographic evidence is inauthentic, which certainly hasn't happened with the Zapruder film. Eye-witness evidence cannot be used to support the theory that the Zapruder film has been faked.

It was alleged in post 288 that the Zapruder film does not contain evidence that more than three shots were fired, and that consequently the film must have been altered. I pointed out in post 300 that the film actually contains evidence consistent with at least four shots having been fired: yet another way in which the Zapruder film contradicts the lone-nut hypothesis.

Consequences of Forgery

The film as we know it clearly supports the proposition that more than one gunman was involved in the assassination. If the Zapruder film has been faked, it can only have been faked by concealing genuine evidence favourable to the lone-nut hypothesis and by creating fake evidence pointing to a conspiracy. This is, to put it mildly, not very likely.

I've pointed out in several posts that no-one has yet identified a single discrepancy between the Zapruder film and the rest of the photographic record that doesn't have a straightforward explanation. Consequently, if the Zapruder film was faked, much of the rest of the photographic record must have been faked too, a notion that is about as plausible as the moon landings having been faked (which at least one prominent 'Zapruder film is fake' enthusiast seems to have believed), or Elvis Presley being the gunman on the grassy knoll.

Paranoid Fantasies

What are we left with? That the Zapruder film contradicts the measurements and shooting sequences suggested by the FBI or the CIA or the Secret Service? I'm sure everyone can see the answer to that one: just as eye-witnesses can be unreliable, so can members of official agencies. Whether by accident or design, the agencies got some of their measurements and shooting sequences wrong. Big deal! With the realisation that the agencies were not infallible, the last surviving element of the case for forgery disappears in a puff of smoke.

All these equations claiming that the limousine was 49' 3" north-south-west of the faked photo of Neil Armstrong at Robert West's hypotenuse of station 3.142, or whatever, are just hot air. It's like discussing how many angels you can fit on a pinhead, when you haven't yet produced a single piece of credible evidence that angels actually exist.

I know what you're going to say: "But the Bad Guys can't make mistakes! They are all-powerful! I really like conspiracies! Please don't take my conspiracy away!" To which the obvious reply is that the Zapruder film provides plenty of evidence that more than one gunman took part in the assassination. That's your conspiracy, not some made-up nonsense about faked films. You can have one or the other, but not both.

Winners and Losers

Let's look at who benefits from this paranoid desire to construct imaginary conspiracies:

• If you claim that the Zapruder film has been faked, you are implying that evidence contradicting the lone-nut hypothesis should be discarded. Much of this evidence is found nowhere else. In whose interests would it be to discard this evidence?
• If you claim that the Zapruder film has been faked, you're wasting your time on a nonsensical dead-end. Your time would surely be better spent doing something productive, such as criticising the lone-nut hypothesis on rational grounds. In whose interests is it to divert people away from making worthwhile criticisms of the lone-nut hypothesis?
• If you claim that the Zapruder film has been faked, you are reinforcing the public perception that everyone who criticises the lone-nut hypothesis is a tin-foil hat-wearing paranoid fantasist, and that the JFK assassination is not a subject worthy of serious discussion. Again, in whose interests is this?

You are lost. You have no idea what the math is about or what it's showing you.

I can see you haven't quite figured out how ballistics and mathematics relate to each other.

Refer back to post #309.

Understand the question.

Answer the question.

I rest my case.

Start your own "Zapruder film is genuine" thread.

[Michael Walton]

Chris,

As I predicted way up above the most you and Dave can now say is "Chris/Dave are right" and "Mike/Jeremy/others are wrong" and "we're stupid/idiotic" and so on.

Why should we start a new thread, Chris? YOU started this thread, Chris, and YOU have to present your theories with solid evidence, which you did not.

This entire thread is an embarrassment to the Kennedy research community. Or as Jeremy said it best:

You are reinforcing the public perception that everyone who criticises the lone-nut hypothesis is a tin-foil hat-wearing paranoid fantasist, and that the JFK assassination is not a subject worthy of serious discussion. Again, in whose interests is this?

Edited July 17, 2016 by Michael Walton

[Michael Walton]

Oh, Chris, you're scrambling, reaching...you've proven nothing. The film is genuine. Accept it. Nothing left to be said, Chris. Nothing.

Math? Formulas? Higher FPS? It's not there, Chris. It's not.

"Extant after 313?" So now there are more FPS after the head shot? And before you were saying there were more frames earlier up on Elm Street?

And even if according to your logic, what would it prove?

Here are two films synched up:

The movements are perfectly in sync. The above proves that two different films made by two different people captured the same thing and it also proves that no extra FPS were recorded by Zapruder. If he had, then the films wouldn't match.

I'm not going back to previous posts. They prove nothing - they're all garbage and nonsense.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Michael Walton

[Chris Davidson]

Once you figure out what was done in post #266, your perfect sync idea becomes null and void.

Once you realize the problem with a frontal shot and the extant zfilm, post z313, your genuine film becomes null and void.

If you refuse to look at previous posts, that's your prerogative.

Whenever you decide to increase my viewer count, I'll refer you back in time. That's if I even respond to your cr----p. Which is unlikely.

Why don't you increase your viewer count by starting a new topic. That way, you can decrease my count. A win-win situation.

Time for more Math.

[Chris Davidson]

A quick refresher into the reality of ballistics.

Obviously didn't come from the 6th floor snipers nest.

[Chris Davidson]

And, when the same ballistics data is used except for the limo speed - changed from 28.6mph - 11.2mph (average speed determined by WC) the difference in vertical lead via ballistics calculator is :

6.7" - 2.6" = 4.1inches.

Pretty much disqualifies the shirt/jacket bunch theory reproduced on "Beyond the Magic Bullet" and enforces what Bennett described as a shot location, which was not a throat shot.

Ballistics and Math, a wonderful combination.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Chris Davidson

[Chris Davidson]

The text is provided from Tom P.

The flashing inset is extant zframe 207 from the WC recreation in May 1964.

The photograph ran in Life Mag. Nov29, 1963. It was taken Nov23, 1963.

[Chris Davidson]

Remember, there are stacked boxes to deal with too.

[David Josephs]

The film as we know it clearly supports the proposition that more than one gunman was involved in the assassination. If the Zapruder film has been faked, it can only have been faked by concealing genuine evidence favourable to the lone-nut hypothesis and by creating fake evidence pointing to a conspiracy. This is, to put it mildly, not very likely.

Jeremy, you write: "If the Zapruder film has been faked, it can only have been faked by concealing genuine evidence favourable to the lone-nut hypothesis"

You truly have no clue what is going on here Jeremy...

Maybe some JFK101?

The "Cuba/Castro" conspiracy was used to keep people quiet since the evidence the CIA and FBI were creating by having Oswald in and around "Pro-Castro" Cubans all the while working for Anti-Castro groups.

Alvarado, one of Philip's assets from Nicaragua, told a bogus story to incriminate Oswald as having taken money from pro-Castro Cubans to kill JFK. Oswald was doing his job which by default made him look sympathetic to the Pro-Castro cause.

On the morning of the 23rd, one of the first things LBJ wants to know is what went on in Mexico

By mid afternoon on Nov 22 the "Castro Conspiracy to kill JFK" had been abandoned (as expected since it was simply for leverage) and Oswald the Lone Nut is born.

The entire process at Bethesda is to change the evidence from a shot to the temple blowing out the back of the head to a shot to the back of the head blowing out the Temple

Here is JFK with overlays of his intact skull and what Bethesda tried to tell us...

You see Jeremy, you are looking at this with 2016 eyes and not 1963. The film was not shown publically for 13 more years.

While you keep saying it's obvious from the film, what you keep forgetting is after that weekend and even during that weekend all the produced were frame reproductions with frame #'s that were arbitrary.

There is no "genuine evidence favourable to the lone-nut hypothesis" to conceal.... and why, if it supported the LNT would they remove or conceal evidence favorable to a lone gunman from the rear?

What evidence would that be Jeremy?

Both JFK and JC are shot in the back before the head shot... 3 shots - 3 hits (Have you found the JC shot yet? Z242 or z264?)

To many, the limo slowed to a crawl and stopped as is evidence in the 302-303 gif I posted with both limo and background in focus and Greer's amazing head turn

To many shots come from the fence area of the GK

FBI Statement: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brehm.htm

BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight..

Mr. SPECTER - How many shots were there altogether?

Mrs. HILL - I have always said there were some four to six shots. There were three shots---one right after the other, and a distinct pause, or just a moment's pause, and then I heard more.

Mr. SPECTER - Any conscious impression of where this third shot came from?

Mrs. HILL - Not any different from any of them. I thought it was just people shooting from the knoll---I did think there was more than one person shooting.

Mr. SPECTER - You did think there was more than one person shooting?

Mrs. HILL - Yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER - What made you think that?

Mrs. HILL - The way the 'gun report sounded and the difference in the way they were fired-the timing.

Mr. SPECTER. Well, have you viewed the films, Mr. Kellerman?

Mr. KELLERMAN. I have; yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. Was there something special in your viewing of the films which led you to believe that there were more than three shots?

Mr. KELLERMAN. No: it doesn't point out more than three shots, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. Which films are you referring to?

Mr. KELLERMAN. These are the colored ones that were taken on the right side.

So now we have a great many witnesses describing things which the FBI & SS were very concerned with disproving.

Kellerman's role at Bethesda was nothing short of amazing with him leaving Greer and the ambulance at the front, sprinting to the Morgue at 7pm at the back and then helping the FBI wheel a casket to the anteroom at 7:17.

Kellerman appears to have some guilt here but cannot go against the official evidence... and lo and behold the FILM does not show more than 3 shots...

I wonder how a film of an event with so many closest to the limo claiming there were more than 3 shots, and the evidence we have proving there were more than three shots - can be made to show only 3 and no more????

Well by golly, they may have removed some of what the film showed which would convince others that more than a single shooter from the rear was there that day.

And then, when we do go to the film with 1963 eyes we find the strangest of anomalies right where these claimed occurrences happened... the removal of the turn onto Elm, a break at 157, a break at 207, an impossible frame from a panning movie camera showing everything in focus, impossible head turns at 303 and 316 - right when the limo is said to have slowed to a crawl by oh so many witnesses, the absence of Chaney's reaction on film yet is corroborated by half dozen people.

All these strange things on the film in the most questioned areas of DP.

All the evidence... and I do mean ALL, is focused on one and only one thing - incriminate Oswald. Of course the film is going to be presented to the public as if it had never been changed...

What we are still doing here is to dive deeper into the Evidence which was changed. The Bethesda episode is fairly easy to follow once you start reading the ARRB evidence. Our Mr. Ebersole gives away the farm and Humes has moved the arrival time from close to 8pm back to 6:45 when he began work on JFK 10 minutes before he supposedly arrived.

When we ask you and Mikey to start a new thread it's because you've so badly butchered your position on this one. We all KNOW about the conspiracy boys...

What we are uncovering is HOW THEY DID IT.

When you finally understand that 2 Zapruder films are in Washing DC the night of Nov 22, maybe you'll start to understand that the Zfilm chronology is part of the Conspiracy's evidence.

Until then, start at the beginning of this thread and take some notes. It's been all laid out for you if you care... if not - then step up your game a bit please, your rebuttals are now quite whiny and annoying and say very little about what we are doing here... If you start a thread called, Why the Zfilm is Authentic, we promise to come over and play this silly game over there.

That you still can't follow that MANY SHOTS were turned into 3 and then those three were turned into 2 shots while the evidence needed to reflect this new reality is truly mind-boggling.

What is it in your understanding of the case that gets sidetracked if the film is in fact severely altered anyway?

[Michael Walton]

You know, both of you guys are an embarrassment to the serious JFK community with this thread. I simply cannot believe you can't see with your own eyes how absolutely crazy your wacky claims are here. It's ridiculous.

Dave - you're now using the "no one saw the film for 13 years" line - which I've used numerous times on this thread - but you're using it for all of the wrong reasons. The real reason is simple - the film we see today is the film that came out of the camera. That's all there is to it. And they didn't want to show it to the public.

All of this craziness about quoting people over and over and over again really reveals how you're turning over every nook and cranny to think it's some kind of - gasp! - conspiracy. Watch the Simpsons episode about how Halloween was started back in the 1600's, how when someone sneezed, they'd yell, "Witch!" I'd laugh here but this thread is too depressing.

All of this craziness with math and all the other BS is just that - crazy BS. If there are any new readers here, the only thing I'd tell them is start at the ### end back on this thread; if you start at the beginning it's a complete waste of time.

[David Josephs]

That's perfect Michael... condemn and insult that which you don't understand...

What are you in 3rd grade?

And yet there you are, post after post as if you had something to say, something to offer.

We're all now very aware of what you think about the Zfilm.... was that your point? To repeatedly post your opinions and beliefs without understanding the thread you are posting it within...

They call that trolling on the rest of the internet... here it's called "cointelpro tactics"... A step by step tutorial on how to disrupt forums and create believable straw-man arguments.

Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION'

Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt(trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation (excerpts)

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

And the one you've both used to death:

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

The manner in which you approach "Proof" is an embarrassment to research. You both should be ashamed for peddling your reworked and tired opinions and beliefs as FACTS related to the case.

Once again... MATH RULES is a thread about the MATH used to create CE884, CE560, CE875 and WCD298 to convince us that the physical evidence they offer is authentic. It's not and provably so.

That a fact as easy as Zapruder giving the FBI a film - his original? - on the night of the 22nd - cause it's not in the timeline you found with a Google search

The fact that 0184 cannot be accounted for or explained

The fact that Philips describes a 4th copy or a duplicate original 8mm print going to the Secret Service in DC

The fact that the "in camera original" is now in 9 pieces - none of which can be related back to 0183

The fact that 1 of the 3 (or 4) 1st day films - one of the two in DC Friday night - simply disappears and one of the SS films also has no identifying # on it

These are facts related to the provenance of the Zfilm "original". Now, what evidence again do you have to prove the film the authentic original? THAT is what you can start your new thread about...

Here we are talking MATH. So you can either continue trolling this thread (which is quite obvious to all) or do the right thing and go play with yourselves in a new thread of your devising....

Either way could you both try and Man Up and act like responsible adults rather than 3rd graders with nothing better to do than hit the new idea you don't understand with a brick cause it's over your head.