Swan-Song -- Math Rules

[David Josephs]

You know, both of you guys are an embarrassment to the serious JFK community with this thread

BTW - blow is out your A$$ Michael. Not our fault you're not smart enough to follow along and too close-minded to ever try.

But it is your own damn fault that you keep coming back to show off your ignorance.

You both have yet to offer anything here that was not already known... or refuted years ago.

Maybe if you'd just toddle off and do something else our affront to the JFK research community will not bother you any longer.

If you absolutely must post here - I'd ask the moderators to keep the boys on topic

MATH RULES.... is about Math, not whether you believe the Zfilm is authentic or not...

So Mikey, you seem the type that walks into a club with music and immediately starts complaining about the song 'cause it's not what YOU wanted when you walked in...

... and then starts to explain what music you do like and why it's not played here...

Didn't your mommy teach you - if you have nothing to add, STFU....

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

David's post 328 contains so many howlers it's difficult to know where to start. Let's begin with his failure to understand one simple point that I made in post 316. This is what I wrote:

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.

In reply, David wrote:

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?

Of course there is no genuine evidence favourable to the lone-nut hypothesis to conceal! That's exactly the point I was making! I'll try to spell it out more clearly:

1. The Zapruder film as we know it contains evidence that contradicts the lone-nut hypothesis.
2. If the film has been altered, this evidence must be fake, and the film can only realistically have been altered by inserting this fake evidence into the film.
3. The film was never in the possession of anyone who would have done this.
4. The Bad Guys would not realistically have inserted this evidence into the film.
5. Therefore, the chance of the film having been altered is very close to zero.

In other words, the fact that the film contradicts the lone-nut hypothesis indicates very, very strongly that it hasn't been altered.

I suppose you could argue that the lapel flap in frame 224 was painted in, since this is the only evidence favourable to the lone-nut hypothesis that the film actually contains. But then you're faced with the huge problem of explaining why the Bad Guys didn't bother to remove the much stronger evidence in the film that contradicts the lone-nut hypothesis.

I'll get around to answering David's other remarks in due course. I still haven't finished with his earlier post.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

One more curious claim in post 288:

for you to accept the Zfilm as a clock of the assassination you MUST assume it is authentic - one does not prove the other and nothing can negate your conclusion... that's a tautology JB, - "the film shows the authentic timing of the shots" & "the timing of the shots shown on this film is authentic" therefore by axiomatic rule the film must be authentic.

I'm not sure where David got that bit from. I've never claimed that because the film shows the authentic timing of the shots, the timing of the shots proves that the film is authentic, which is indeed a tautology.

What I pointed out (in post 285, if you want to check) was that the timing of the relevant section of the Zapruder film, between frame 210 when JFK first becomes visible to the hypothetical lone gunman, and frame 312, the last frame before the head shot, restricts any reasonable timing of three shots to less than six seconds, and that this timing, set against the time taken to operate the rifle, makes the lone-nut hypothesis very improbable.

In other words, if (note the word 'if' there) the Zapruder film as we know it is authentic, these 103 frames provide evidence that contradicts the lone-nut hypothesis.

What this particular point has to do with the authenticity of the film should be obvious. These 103 frames form an item of inconvenient evidence which the Bad Guys rather stupidly forgot to remove when they were faking the film. If these 103 frames are authentic, why did the Bad Guys leave them in the film? Alternatively, if these 103 frames are not authentic, why did the Bad Guys place them in the film? The Zapruder film's timing of the car's progress down the road doesn't prove that the film is authentic, but it does have implications that make the claim of forgery very difficult to believe.

Because this timing evidence is not found anywhere else in the photographic record, dismissing the film would weaken the case against the lone-nut hypothesis. It's sad, but not surprising, that those on the moon-landings wing of the JFK debate don't seem to understand the implications of their irrational desire to see a conspiracy everywhere they look.

Why should we even suspect that there is a problem with the timing shown in the Zapruder film? The only thing it contradicts is the timing that's implied in various official documents. No reasonable person would claim that just because something appears in an official document it must be correct. The obvious conclusion is that it's the official documents that are wrong, not the Zapruder film.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

A couple of points from David's post 328:

The film was not shown publically for 13 more years.

I think you mean that the film was not shown publicly for 12 more years. In fact, there were many unauthorised screenings of bootleg copies before the television broadcast in 1975. David Wrone, in The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination, points out that the Time-Life building's internal security was not strict, and that at the Clay Shaw trial "Garrison ... had bootleg copies made and distributed them to critics and universities. ... Mark Lane showed the film at his numerous lectures around the country ... a group of young critics called the Assassination Information Bureau promoted the film at hundreds of appearances on the college lecture circuit" (p.60). I'd very much recommend Professor Wrone's book to anyone with a genuine desire to find out whether or not the film is authentic. I'm not convinced that David and Chris are members of that group, but I'd be happy to be proved wrong.

More importantly, as Michael has pointed out several times, there is a very obvious reason for the authorities' reluctance to have the film seen by the public. It's because the film, which David imagines was altered to conceal evidence of more than one gunman, actually contains plenty of such evidence. The public's access to the film was restricted not because the film had been altered in some mysterious way, but precisely because it had not been altered.

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?)

I can't tell whether this is a criticism or a challenge. I believe that Governor Connally was of the opinion that the Zapruder film showed him being shot somewhere around frame 238, so let's go with that until any better evidence turns up.

I'm not sure where the choice of frames 242 or 264 comes from. I suspect it's from some official reconstruction, and that David's reasoning (if that's the right word to use) goes like this:

1. Some official source claims that a shot was fired at frames 242 or 264.
2. I can't see any evidence of a shot in these frames.
3. The official source, being a Bad Guy, must have been infallible.
4. Because the official source was infallible, it cannot have misinterpreted what it saw on the Zapruder film.
5. Instead, the official source must have seen a different version of the Zapruder film.
6. Therefore the Zapruder film as we know it is a fake.

Duh!

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Also from David's post 328:

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????

At least you've moved on from your claim that the film shows only two shots, which I took to pieces in post 300.

I presume this is what you're suggesting:

1. Several witnesses claimed that more than three shots were fired.
2. Even in traumatic situations such as the JFK assassination, every witness's memory is perfect and remains so for decades after the event.
3. The Zapruder film shows evidence of only three shots.
4. Therefore the film must have been faked.

As I pointed out in post 300, the film actually shows evidence that is consistent with at least four shots having been fired. You can't conclude from this that the film has been faked. The fact that this evidence contradicts the lone-nut hypothesis suggests strongly that the film hasn't been faked, for reasons I've given umpteen times already, though they don't seem to have sunk in yet.

David makes a couple of points that have no obvious bearing on whether or not the Zapruder film has been faked:

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.

In other words, the lone-nut hypothesis was created out of political necessity. I'm aware of that; I wrote a book which deals with that, among other topics.

But what has this to do with faking the Zapruder film? I'd guess the claim is that the need to portray Oswald as a lone nut forced the Bad Guys to alter the Zapruder film to conceal evidence of conspiracy. Here we go again: the film contains plenty of evidence which David thinks the Bad Guys must have removed from the film, and it contains next to no evidence of the sort we can expect the Bad Guys to have inserted into the film. Those incompetent Bad Guys!

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...

Whoa! I hope you aren't trying to revive the old body-alteration theory. That one's out there with 'Harvey and Lee' and 'the driver shot JFK'. Nurse! Fetch the big butterfly net!

The final point I'd like to make here is that neither David nor Chris has yet bothered to explain in plain English exactly which frames they think are not authentic. If you're claiming that the film is not authentic, the first thing you really need to do is to identify the extent of the forgery. I can't say I blame them for wanting to avoid this question.

[David Josephs]

One more curious claim in post 288:

for you to accept the Zfilm as a clock of the assassination you MUST assume it is authentic - one does not prove the other and nothing can negate your conclusion... that's a tautology JB, - "the film shows the authentic timing of the shots" & "the timing of the shots shown on this film is authentic" therefore by axiomatic rule the film must be authentic.

I'm not sure where David got that bit from. I've never claimed that because the film shows the authentic timing of the shots, the timing of the shots proves that the film is authentic, which is indeed a tautology. (my emphasis)

What I pointed out (in post 285, if you want to check) was that the timing of the relevant section of the Zapruder film, between frame 210 when JFK first becomes visible to the hypothetical lone gunman, and frame 312, the last frame before the head shot, restricts any reasonable timing of three shots to less than six seconds, and that this timing, set against the time taken to operate the rifle, makes the lone-nut hypothesis very improbable.

In other words, if (note the word 'if' there) the Zapruder film as we know it is authentic, these 103 frames provide evidence that contradicts the lone-nut hypothesis.

What this particular point has to do with the authenticity of the film should be obvious. These 103 frames form an item of inconvenient evidence which the Bad Guys rather stupidly forgot to remove when they were faking the film. If these 103 frames are authentic, why did the Bad Guys leave them in the film? Alternatively, if these 103 frames are not authentic, why did the Bad Guys place them in the film? The Zapruder film's timing of the car's progress down the road doesn't prove that the film is authentic, but it does have implications that make the claim of forgery very difficult to believe.

Because this timing evidence is not found anywhere else in the photographic record, dismissing the film would weaken the case against the lone-nut hypothesis. It's sad, but not surprising, that those on the moon-landings wing of the JFK debate don't seem to understand the implications of their irrational desire to see a conspiracy everywhere they look.

Why should we even suspect that there is a problem with the timing shown in the Zapruder film? The only thing it contradicts is the timing that's implied in various official documents. No reasonable person would claim that just because something appears in an official document it must be correct. The obvious conclusion is that it's the official documents that are wrong, not the Zapruder film.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22692&page=22#entry331213 This is from your post #316 Jeremy

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.

You write above (y'know, in case you forget where and what you write) : these 103 frames provide evidence that contradicts the lone-nut hypothesis.

Who outside the FBI, CIA & SS sees this film prior to 1975, as a film, not as individual frames ?.

Since you seem to be the Zfilm expert, using the briefing board below please identify for us the evidence of anything but a single shooter from the TSDB. If these are too small for you choose any Zfilm frames you like and only using these frames prove what you are saying - for once - rather than just saying it.

To the right - and posted before on this thread - are the frames the NPIC and LIFE determined had shots. Explain to us JB, using these frames, how they show more than a single rear shooter.

Too bad it has not yet dawned on you that LIFE was part of charade to remove the film from circulation - NOT to exploit it's ownership licenses or right other than to place individual frames - in the wrong order - in their magazine in the issues following the 22nd.

So stop bloviating and PROVE SOMETHING.

As for your 103 frames... there are so many things wrong which have been repeatedly pointed out to you and posted in this thread, especially around 210 (which was one of a series of frames that also mysteriously were cut from the "master" film.)

so here's one more for you JB - Anywhere we see no sprocket images a "copy" was used to replace the damaged frames... Why are so many places from the "master" film replaced by frames from a copy?

Thought there was only one little tear...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=fe34da04fa9f9ecacbee33bb7a5297f7&showtopic=15198#entry177596 Zfilm Analysis mentions the 1 foot per frame speed of the limo yet from 197-218 the limo only moves 10 feet... do we see the limo slowing to half the speed from 161-196?

You see Jeremy, this is called EVIDENCE, that which you never seem to offer in any of your posts.... you only offer observations, opinions and what you believe. Can't discuss logic and analysis with a person of Faith. And FAITH is the only thing you've offered to support you conclusion of an unaltered film.

The original survey has the 207-208 distance at 2.3 feet, in one frame. That's almost 29mph JB. So it was changed to 207-210...3 frames at .8' each is about 9.5mph for the WCR CE884.

IT WAS CHANGED Jeremy... because the MATH did not represent the FILM. So again JB, show us where this speeding up occurs over the course of 190-207 and then immediately slow down by more than half.

If the film is showing exactly what occurred, why does it appear that the limo is gliding at a constant speed from 134 to 207?

Yet again JB try not to hit us with Cointelpro tactics in rebuttal... can you simply post the frames in which you see evidence of multiple shots or impossible shot spacing... or not?

If not JB, I'm done with you. If you can't offer something to actually support your position, you have no position to offer.

As for Mikey... he remains on your coattails as long as you continue to sound like you are saying something. He, like you, remain completely lost in this thread while you stand on your soapboxes decrying what the "community" should and shouldn't be doing.

Here's a thought... pick a topic, pick a conclusion and present your supporting evidence/analysis rather than continue to play bewildered critic with a faith -based straw man argument

K? or is that simply too hard for you to do....

[David Josephs]

And now JB is throwing in everything plus the kitchen sink in an attempt.

Quote

The final point I'd like to make here is that neither David nor Chris has yet bothered to explain in plain English exactly which frames they think are not authentic. If you're claiming that the film is not authentic, the first thing you really need to do is to identify the extent of the forgery. I can't say I blame them for wanting to avoid this question.

Let's see if you can follow JB...

At 48fps there are more frames taken than the 486 we see.

48/18.3 = 2.623

2.623 x 486 = 1275 frames @48fps = 486 at 18.3 You still with me?

If you remove the 2nd and 3rd frame from each 3 frame sequence you are now left with a 16fps film that is a little darker than if shot at 18.3 due to the speed of the film at 48fps.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 is a frame # sequence at 48fps

1 4 7 or

3 6 9 or

2 5 8 are all 16 fps versions of these same 9 frames and each will show something a little different

Now what if we did this?

1 7 9 what was on frames 2-6 is no longer shown and we still have a 16fps film, albeit slightly jumpy (as wee see in the Zfilm)

18.3fps - why?

The grade of the street equates to 1 vertical foot for every 18.3 horizontal feet traveled - how convenient

The speed of the limo the FBI decided upon - 11.2 - equates to 1 foot traveled per frame

Yet from 161-166 the limo only moves .9' That's 2.24mph JB Does it appear to you that limo is moving that slowly at 166?

From 167 to 185 it's now back to 1 foot per frame or 11-12mph

Do you see the limo accelerating or decelerating from 186 thru 220?

The attached Zfilm is a Quicktime movie which runs forward and backward within QT. the speed is much more apparent running backward...

==================================

So one more time

1. 133: Ho likely is it that Zapruder stopped filming and then started up again and no a single frame is messed up nor do we see the tell-tale light leak we saw in frame #1
   
   
    
2. between 156 and 157 what appears like a tear has JFK going from looking in one direction around to the opposite direction. It is also at this time that 161-166 representing .9' traveled works out exactly as if those 5 frames were filmed at 48fps
    
3. 207-212... If you've been reading the posts you'd know but probably not understand what occurs at 207 down thru 212. LIFE claims an unnamed tech damaged 208-9-10-11 and has never offered an explanation for 156/157
   
   
4. Frame 303 is impossible. A moving motion picture camera cannot have both a moving subject and a stationary background in focus at the same time.
   
   and the impossible head movement
5. 314-17 Greer once again speeds thru a head turn after spending the last 14 frames staring at JFK
   
   
   
   This is 315-317:
   
   
    
6. And finally we have all of WCD298 describing along with a number of other exhibits placing a shot 40 feet further down Elm than Z313
   
   
   
   After all the frames that needed removing were removed - all one needed to do was to xfer the new 486 frame movie to a single continuous film thereby creating the sprocket images as we see them

Healy can explain it much better than I can in terms of the process and machinery... the work is available online.

I don't really care to hear your incredulity over what is posted here JB unless you address my previous posts... Please show us signs in the frames which indicate multiple shooters that you claim is so obvious.

Thanks

 

Edited February 7, 2017 by David Josephs
no upload space left

[Michael Walton]

Because this timing evidence is not found anywhere else in the photographic record, dismissing the film would weaken the case against the lone-nut hypothesis. It's sad, but not surprising, that those on the moon-landings wing of the JFK debate don't seem to understand the implications of their irrational desire to see a conspiracy everywhere they look.

Oh, Jeremy! That is a grand-slam home run wrapped around a 95 yard touchdown pass. That is a grand, grand statement, indeed. Well done!

[David Josephs]

When the 2 of you are done with the circle jerk, take your off topic crap elsewhere...

It's truly sad you haven't the self awareness to know what jerks you two are making of yourselves...

Can't understand the subject

Can't go learn more about the subject

Complain about the subject

yet you keep showing up and posting as if you have something to offer.

Wannabe's like you two come and go constantly... you do your cute little insulting and cointelpro attacks, you can't take responsibility for your own ignorance and yet we still have to suffer thru your trolling BS...

You two are what has become wrong with this forum and the community in general...

[Michael Walton]

Dave (and Chris) - you keep running around in circles, OK? I'm sure the hole is neck deep by now, but you keep going. And you're not all that far from China.

[Michael Walton]

Here's what it looked like the night the Bad Guys got a hold of the film and were going through the 48 FPS portion of it. This photo was taken at the exact moment they knew they saw sparks were flying up from the street where the little girl is seen running.

"We've got a busy night ahead of us," said the guy on the left. "No ####!" said the guy on the right.

Bawwaaaaa! Hilarious!

[David G. Healy]

Here's what it looked like the night the Bad Guys got a hold of the film and were going through the 48 FPS portion of it. This photo was taken at the exact moment they knew they saw sparks were flying up from the street where the little girl is seen running.

"We've got a busy night ahead of us," said the guy on the left. "No ####!" said the guy on the right.

[...]

Bawwaaaaa! Hilarious!

Geez Dude, the least you could do to even make a joke with bite is use 16mm or 8mm film viewers. But 35mm? That's downright amateurish on your part. But, don't let us stop you having your day in the sun...

[David Josephs]

Here's what it looked like the night the Bad Guys got a hold of the film and were going through the 48 FPS portion of it. This photo was taken at the exact moment they knew they saw sparks were flying up from the street where the little girl is seen running.

"We've got a busy night ahead of us," said the guy on the left. "No ####!" said the guy on the right.

[...]

Bawwaaaaa! Hilarious!

Geez Dude, the least you could do to even make a joke with bite is use 16mm or 8mm film viewers. But 35mm? That's downright amateurish on your part. But, don't let us stop you having your day in the sun...

Don't confuse the poor man with facts DH... ruins the "can I have an AMEN" at the end of his faith-based posts

[Michael Walton]

Geez Dude, the least you could do to even make a joke with bite is use 16mm or 8mm film viewers. But 35mm? That's downright amateurish on your part. But, don't let us stop you having your day in the sun...

Oh, no wait - wait - wait - wait!! Oh I forgot to tell you. Based on more testimony I found from Zapruder, Bookout, and others, and a little snippet of a quote from the lady standing right next to the freeway sign, I've determined that this photo was taken AFTER the 8mm Z film was bumped up to 16mm, scaled back down to 1-inch videotape, then double-bumped back up to 35mm, which is what you see in the photo.

And oh yeah - notice the middle reel - that's the one that has 96 FPS that Mr Zapruder shot for about 3 seconds as the car was coming down the street. I know that because I did some mathematical calculations and determined that if you take 18 FPS, multiply it by the cogent of 1.2546 latitude, and then nudge the film ever so slightly over to the right, and then take three frames of the film out, but then take four frames from the end of the reel and put them in the same place where you excised those other frames, you have a perfect measurement of 96 FPS.

Oh, and by the way, if anyone - AT ALL - disagrees with this, then you just don't SEEEE that I'm totally, completely 100% right on this. You're simply just too incompetent. I know I'm right...I just know I am.

Edited July 19, 2016 by Michael Walton

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Wow. I can almost see the steam rising from David Josephs' ears and swirling around his tin-foil hat.

You write above (y'know, in case you forget where and what you write) : these 103 frames provide evidence that contradicts the lone-nut hypothesis.

Who outside the FBI, CIA & SS sees this film prior to 1975, as a film, not as individual frames ?.

That wins the prize for non sequitur of the year. It's also uninformed. I told you in post 334 that there were hundreds of showings of bootleg copies of the Zapruder film prior to 1975. I suggest you read my post again, and follow the link to Professor Wrone's book on Amazon. Read the book; you'll learn a lot. One of the things you'll learn is that there were hundreds of showings of bootleg copies of the Zapruder film, as a film rather than as individual frames, before the first TV broadcast.

Too bad it has not yet dawned on you that LIFE was part of charade to remove the film from circulation - NOT to exploit it's ownership licenses or right other than to place individual frames - in the wrong order - in their magazine in the issues following the 22nd.

I'm well aware that Time Inc played its part in keeping the film out of the public eye. This does not suggest that the film has been faked. It suggests that the film has not been faked. The film was clearly kept out of circulation because it appears to contain very strong evidence that contradicts the lone-nut hypothesis: the necessity for three shots to have been fired in under six seconds, Connally being shot after Kennedy had already been wounded, and a head shot from the front. The fact that the film as we know it contains this evidence shows that the film is extremely unlikely to have been faked, for the obvious reason that this evidence is precisely what any forgers would have wanted to conceal. This has been explained to you over and over again, but you show no signs that you have grasped this very simple point. Perhaps, though, the comical anger on display in your latest posts shows that you have grasped it, and it has made you realise the implausibility of this particular conspiracy theory.

can you simply post the frames in which you see evidence of multiple shots or impossible shot spacing... or not?

What? I pointed out in post 300 the places in the Zapruder film which seem to contain evidence that is consistent with at least four shots having been fired. That post, by the way, is the one in which I corrected David's claim that the Zapruder film shows evidence for no more than two shots.

I'm not sure what David means by "impossible shot spacing" nor why I should produce evidence for it, since I've never claimed that any such thing exists. As far as I can tell, the Zapruder film's evidence for at least four shots is perfectly compatible with the laws of physics.

Now let's look at the most interesting part of David's latest stream-of-consciousness rants:

The original survey has the 207-208 distance at 2.3 feet, in one frame. That's almost 29mph JB. So it was changed to 207-210...3 frames at .8' each is about 9.5mph for the WCR CE884.

I mentioned in one or two earlier posts the stupidity of assuming that if an official document contradicts a film or photograph, it's the film or photograph that must be wrong, not the document. I speculated in post 334 that David had made this mistake with his incoherent comment about Connally being shot (or not shot; it's difficult to tell) at frames 242 or 264. Now he has given us proof that this really is how he thinks: a survey contradicts what we see in the Zapruder film, so it's the film that must be wrong!

That was in post 336. In post 337 David makes the same mistake again:

And finally we have all of WCD298 describing along with a number of other exhibits placing a shot 40 feet further down Elm than Z313

The relevant part of Commission Document 298 comprises photographs of the FBI's scale model of Dealey Plaza, and illustrates the FBI's interpretation of the shooting. Because someone placed a miniature car in the wrong position in the scale model, causing CD 298 to contradict the Zapruder film, it's the film that must be wrong!

That's what this 23-page embarrassment of a thread boils down to: the cryptic mathematical equations are supposed to demonstrate the Zapruder film's inconsistency with various official documents and interpretations. And all the time, the only rational conclusion is that when there is a conflict, it is actually the official documents and interpretations that are wrong, not the Zapruder film.