Swan-Song -- Math Rules

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Thanks for your comments, Michael.

I think it's very revealing that David has been reduced to throwing insults around:

blow is [sic] out your A$$ Michael.

STFU

your trolling BS

cointelpro tactics

What are you in 3rd grade?

Personally, I think it is unwise for someone with Mr Josephs' written communication skills to ask "are you in 3rd grade?"

He does get one thing right, though:

Can't discuss logic and analysis with a person of Faith.

That's what the 'Zapruder film is a fake' theory is: an article of faith. It is extremely implausible in principle, and there's no evidence to support it that doesn't crumble away on close inspection. The faithful believe it not because there's any good objective evidence to support it, but simply because it satisfies a believer's psychological need, in this case a paranoid need to see all-powerful Bad Guys everywhere.

[Richard Price]

Chris, David, I usually don't post on the forum unless I have a question or something to add to the information, but in this instance, I just want to say, keep up the good work and don't let a few scoffers get you off topic. I hope you will both stop responding to the derogatory circular reasoning/questioning of what you are doing and simply let it fall on deaf ears. I do not currently have the time to delve deeply into the computations you are advancing, however I can understand the underlying concept and find it to be a common sense explanation for the differences between eye witnesses and what we see in the current film. All of us that don't have the time & skills to commit to the necessary work of exposing this conspiracy/coup thank you both for your time and dedication. I will now go back to lurking in the background, reading, studying and hoping that we will, in our lifetime get the full story to the general public. Thank you.

[David Josephs]

Thanks for the kind words Richard.

Yes, I get too hot over the lack of vision and the dedication to ignorance these two exhibit. My bad, but after 50 years my ways are pretty set.

I liken this to Tome Hume's work with the anagrams. When someone sees clearly that which you'd like to understand, an intelligent person doesn't attack it, they try to understand and work it into their world view.

I marvel at Tom's work even though I only understand a small part. I don't worry about right and wrong as this case turns the world upside-down and inside-out.

As for the story ever getting out to the public - I fear the Evidence has so become the conspiracy that it is like cream in the coffee... It can't be unstirred once the two liquids are mixed.

There are so few authentic facts in this case that, as my series is dedicated to, all we'll ever really see is the shadow of the conspiracy and how it was developed.

This also remains one of the few cases where witness testimony, corroborated, is infinitely more valuable to finding the truths that the physical evidence can ever be,,,,

Chris and I, mostly Chris, are using the math to try and separate the cream from the coffee - and has been more effective at that then any eyeballing or faith-based visual conclusion.

The place to start is the pre and post survey legend: and the 161 thru 210 distance and speed problems. The movement to 168 from 161 was brilliantly explained by Chris

The move of 166 to 171 as well. and finally 208 to 210 changing a 1 frame = 2.3' speed to a 3 frame = 2.3' speed.

Finally - I am convinced that WCD298's 3rd shot further down Elm was imaginary and needed to place 3 shots between 190 and 312 so it matched the altered film.

When Redlich mentions this report being completely incorrect after the Zfilm viewing (April 27, 1964) - I see this as him warning the WC lawyers that the evidence does not support a shot that far down Elm and needed to be fixed

And what happens in May? The 3 shot survey becomes a 2 shot survey with that made up shot after Z313 disappearing....The Evidence IS the Conspiracy

Thanks again for speaking up

DJ

[Michael Walton]

...keep up the good work and don't let a few scoffers get you off topic...

Richard - how in the world can you even offer encouragement to these guys when you yourself say that you haven't even taken the time to read their wacky, crazy "theories?"

I mean, what are we here for? I'm assuming that none of us support the lone gunman BS that the Warren Report is, correct? If that's the case, then Jeremy, and me to a lesser degree, have stated over and over again - ad infinitum - (how's that for a 3rd grader?) that the film SHOWS conspiracy without any alteration/manipulation needed by the conspirators.

Jeremy's many well-written critiques to Chris and Dave have pointed out that the timing of the shots as described by the WC were virtually impossible to do based on what's shown in the current film. The creaky bolt-action of the rifle alone, along with a misaligned scope, would not have allowed ANYONE to pull this off as seen in the film.

I've worked with 8mm film and as I've said way back in this thread, these crazy guys think it's oh-so-easy to take a film with frames as big as your thumbnail and have a gaggle of editors manipulate it when no one even knew what to cover up in the first place, yet alone do something that was technically impossible to do back in the early 60s. Even Hollywood movies back then shot on 35mm film couldn't do elaborate special effects without them looking hilariously faked (or as Dave likes to use, altered).

Meanwhile, Chris goes around throwing animated GIFs up claiming that the film was shot at 48 FPS, then 18 FPS, then god knows what else. As if Zapruder - a 55-year-old dressmaker who couldn't even hold the camera all that steady that day, was magically flipping switches to change the frame rate mid-shooting.

And these are the people you're offering encouragement to? Jeez...

...let it fall on deaf ears...

The only deaf ears around here are mine literally (I've been deaf since 4 years old), and Chris and Dave's figuratively because they're now so far out there, along with the little green men in Area 51 and the gremlins down in the sewer on Elm Street, that they've lost all reason with this thread, and a great deal of respect from serious researchers of the JFK case. It's pathetic.

[David Josephs]

Incredulity and stupidity need not be your hallmark Mike.

Nobody but you has wandered off the range here. No one here talks about UFOs and Area 51 and gremlins but you - which makes it obvious why you can't follow the thread.

It remains so much more important to you that people listen to your uninformed drivel, ad-homs and hyperbole than for you to learn anything or contribute here.

Sad really as the silent majority of readers are like Richard - curious, interested and open-minded yet they, like us, must suffer thru fools like you.

Better to be thought a fool than to keep posting and removing all doubt Mike.

You've established zero credibility here buddy. and with each post patience wears thinner and thinner... so be proud that you mastered the tactic of Forum disruption for nothing more than your own self interest and your desire to dictate to others what is and is not appropriate subject matter to discuss.

If the shoe fits....

In Internet slang, a xxxxx (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement.

[Michael Walton]

As I've said numerous times in this thread, Dave, Chris and then you are presenting information here that's so far out there and beyond all reason and common sense that it needs, actually deserves, a vigorous rebuttal. You can't thank people who support your crazy claims here and then #### all over people who don't.

This is a forum where there should be an open debate on claims. If you can't stand the heat, then stay out of the kitchen. There are many outstanding presentations I've read by other researchers. Pat Speer exposed Dale Myers for who he is - a fraud - when he made a terribly misleading and dishonest portrayal of the shooting with his goofy cartoon.

Gil Jesus has done great work on the rifle and other items. The CTKA site is great because it reveals who Kennedy actually was and why he was eliminated.

But these crazy claims you and Chris are doing here are ridiculous. I've worked in the multimedia business for 30 years now. I've worked in film, video and all manner of media. I'm pretty knowledgeable about the history of film - not the "my favorite movie" history, but the technique of film making. Every time you try to prop up this ridiculous theory with another animated GIF or a math formula or a snippet of highlighted testimony or some other nonsense, I keep thinking back to the 1980s when I made a 8mm movie for film class. This was back in the mid 80s when Hollywood still didn't have digital technology (it was slowly coming around though) and there I was, watching the 8mm strip I shot through an enlarged magnifying glass, cranking the film until I found what I needed, cutting it, and then splicing it together.

And then here, we're expected to believe that they grabbed the film from Zapruder, went through it, and did all manner of editing, splicing, eliminating, and adding when they didn't even know that early in the game what they were looking for?

It's just so silly...so ridiculous. You can once again go into defense mode and call me dumb, ignorant, a 3rd grader, a tr---l...whatever you wish. But it doesn't change the fact that this whole thread has moved into, as Jeremy so eloquently put it, the "moon landing wing" of JFK research.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Michael Walton

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Michael has identified the fundamental problem with every claim that the Zapruder film was faked:

back in the mid 80s when Hollywood still didn't have digital technology (it was slowly coming around though) and there I was, watching the 8mm strip I shot through an enlarged magnifying glass, cranking the film until I found what I needed, cutting it, and then splicing it together.

And then here, we're expected to believe that they grabbed the film from Zapruder, went through it, and did all manner of editing, splicing, eliminating, and adding when they didn't even know that early in the game what they were looking for?

It's just so silly...so ridiculous.

And that's leaving aside the technical impossibility of copying Kodachrome images onto Kodachrome without generating obvious anomalies in grain, contrast and colour balance. Roland Zavada, whose credentials are exceptional, concluded in a report for the Assassination Records Review Board that the film that is claimed to be the original film from Zapruder's camera contains none of the imperfections that a copy must contain, and that it is indeed the original film from Zapruder's camera.

Despite what the paranoid may want to believe, the Bad Guys are not omnipotent. They couldn't fake films just by snapping their fingers.

Quite apart from the technical impossibilities, every specific claim of forgery fails for one of several straightforward reasons:

1. "The film contradicts a witness statement!" Witnesses can be mistaken. Human memory is far from perfect.
2. "The film contradicts an official document!" Official documents can contain inaccuracies, for innocent reasons or not so innocent reasons.
3. "The film contains some object that shouldn't be there!" You're looking at a dodgy reproduction. When you copy an image enough times, anomalies are generated. To his credit, James Fetzer in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, the holy book of the alterationist cult, included an article by Zavada which points out that many so-called anomalies are simply due to the camera Zapruder was using.
4. "Someone claimed to have seen a different version of the film!" See point 1 above. Assuming the person is honest, either they misremembered the details of what they saw, or they saw a reconstruction that differs in some way from the actual Zapruder film.
5. "The Bad Guys faked the film in order to implicate Oswald as a lone gunman!" The film they are supposed to have faked does exactly the opposite of this. It contains plenty of evidence that more than one gunman was involved. Much of this evidence is found only in the Zapruder film. By dismissing the film as a fake, you are trying to weaken the case against the lone-nut hypothesis.

The methodology that's used in this thread seems to be especially bizarre. It's difficult to be certain when its proponents refuse to explain what the mathematical stuff is all about, but it looks as though the reasoning goes something like this:

1. I've found an anomaly between what an official document or a witness statement claims and what we see in the Zapruder film.
2. I'm so entranced by the idea of conspiracies that I'm going to ignore every obvious explanation for this anomaly.
3. In fact, I'm probably not even aware that there is a straightforward explanation for the anomaly!
4. I'm going to assume that what the anomaly depicts is what actually happened at this particular point during the assassination.
5. By coming up with a mathematical formula, I can show that the anomaly may be consistent with what we might see in a film that has been manipulated in some far-fetched way, such as having frames removed or its speed changed.
6. Therefore the Zapruder film is a fake and everything really is a conspiracy!

As I wrote in post 316:

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.

[Chris Davidson]

Chris, David, I usually don't post on the forum unless I have a question or something to add to the information, but in this instance, I just want to say, keep up the good work and don't let a few scoffers get you off topic. I hope you will both stop responding to the derogatory circular reasoning/questioning of what you are doing and simply let it fall on deaf ears. I do not currently have the time to delve deeply into the computations you are advancing, however I can understand the underlying concept and find it to be a common sense explanation for the differences between eye witnesses and what we see in the current film. All of us that don't have the time & skills to commit to the necessary work of exposing this conspiracy/coup thank you both for your time and dedication. I will now go back to lurking in the background, reading, studying and hoping that we will, in our lifetime get the full story to the general public. Thank you.

Hi Richard,

I'm glad you are interested in this topic.

Here's a mini play by play for this gif:

And their off,

Clint swings his last remaining leg into the limo, JFK is bent over halfway across the seat, Jackie is stretching out on the trunk.

Clint grabs Jackie, JFK is still static, Jackie is looking for a place to sit in the back seat.

Clint forces Jackie's arm down, JFK hasn't moved much, Jackie is being pulled down by Clint.

Clint releases Jackie, JFK is lifeless, Jackie's elbow hits trunk and derriere has risen above the back seat. Nix film ends. Convenient!!!

Jackie sits down 6 frames later.

Well, being this is the most powerful film in the world and can blow this whole case wide open, you have to ask yourself, Did she sit down in 6 frames or not?

Film viewing says it's possible.

Math says 6/18.3 = .327 sec.

Stopwatch says no way.

chris

[Michael Walton]

Yes, Chris, she sits down in time. Wow, you take the cake for ridiculousness and paranoia in what you see in that film, and now you're even seeing things in Nix? Jeez!

So Nix stopped recording at a convenient time, according to you? So now Nix, as he was filming way over on the other side, was waving furiously to Mr Zapruder to keep filming because he was going to stop. "Abe! Abe! I have to stop now because if I don't, it will reveal the conspiracy 53 years later on...what's it's called Madge? Oh, yes! It will be revealed on the Interwebs! But keep going, Abe!"

You're seeing things, Chris. Seeing things...

[Chris Davidson]

Chris, David, I usually don't post on the forum unless I have a question or something to add to the information, but in this instance, I just want to say, keep up the good work and don't let a few scoffers get you off topic. I hope you will both stop responding to the derogatory circular reasoning/questioning of what you are doing and simply let it fall on deaf ears. I do not currently have the time to delve deeply into the computations you are advancing, however I can understand the underlying concept and find it to be a common sense explanation for the differences between eye witnesses and what we see in the current film. All of us that don't have the time & skills to commit to the necessary work of exposing this conspiracy/coup thank you both for your time and dedication. I will now go back to lurking in the background, reading, studying and hoping that we will, in our lifetime get the full story to the general public. Thank you.

Hi Richard,

I'm glad you are interested in this topic.

Here's a mini play by play for this gif:

And their off,

Clint swings his last remaining leg into the limo, JFK is bent over halfway across the seat, Jackie is stretching out on the trunk.

Clint grabs Jackie, JFK is still static, Jackie is looking for a place to sit in the back seat.

Clint forces Jackie's arm down, JFK hasn't moved much, Jackie is being pulled down by Clint.

Clint releases Jackie, JFK is lifeless, Jackie's elbow hits trunk and derriere has risen above the back seat. Nix film ends. Convenient!!!

Jackie sits down 6 frames later.

Well, being this is the most powerful film in the world and can blow this whole case wide open, you have to ask yourself, Did she sit down in 6 frames or not?

Film viewing says it's possible.

Math says 6/18.3 = .327 sec.

Stopwatch says no way.

chris

It would be very simple to prove or disprove this.

All one has to do is recreate Jackie's elbow hitting the trunk surface (Nix film) and slide into the back seat in .32 seconds. In stopwatch terms, that's start/stop as fast as one can press the button.

No need for a moving car.

P.S.

I suggest stabilizing Jackie's movements in the Z film for the time span within the gif, before one puts one's foot in one's mouth.

[Tom Neal]

DELETED BY POSTER

Edited July 28, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Michael Walton]

Tom Neal,

Sarcasm? Go to post #19 and you'll see my first one was more than civilized. Then look at his reply and from there it got worst. Then David Josephs jumped in calling Jeremy and me dumb, ignorant, 3rd graders and so on. Then, to top it off, look at the other thread about the Z film's sprocket holes. CD actually BELIEVES what I said in that post - that there's no such alteration between the sprocket holes because it's the way the Z camera filmed.

Minority? Maybe on this board Jeremy and me are in the minority about the Z film but I hardly think there are "few" people out there who think the film was not altered and from both sides of the aisle (LN vs CT).

Being deaf and in a minority group, believe me when I say I can take #### with the best of them. But there was no reason for CD and DJ to start the name calling just because Jeremy and me disagreed with them.

And that's the whole point of this board. If someone posts something here they better be damned ready to back up their claims. CD and DJ failed miserably because of all of the reasons Jeremy and I posted here. The whole idea of faking the film is ridiculous but amazingly, CD and DJ, supposedly CT-ers, can't see the forest from the trees because there was NO NEED to fake it because 1) the technology was not available; 2) the Bad Guys simply swept it under the rug.

And to answer your question, there are NO FRAMES missing. None. One frame would NOT help the Bad Guys' cause anyway.

[Chris Davidson]

We already knew what your belief was in relationship to the genuineness of the extant film.

The topic is about the math used to create the extant film. You don't appear to be interested in this aspect of the case.

In post19, I asked you a question and provided an example (one of many) to work with. Post 19 gif was created directly from the extant zfilm.

You have yet to answer.

If you did answer truthfully, you might then understand why my posting of the series of frames, with full sprocket hole imaging, doesn't dictate the validity of the extant film.

Alteration could mean removal of frames which have never been viewed before.

Primarily an end game of 67% removal, approx.

[Michael Walton]

Primarily an end game of 67% removal, approx.

Well, Chris, I do have to give you credit for at least being consistent with your "moon landing" theories about the film.

You're unbelieveably consistent

[Chris Davidson]

Chris:

Do you even know what the %$#@ you're talking about? Posting a clip of a motorcycle that runs in normal speed and then slows down? What does that have to do with assassination? I'll say this again clearly and on one line below:

Think in reverse and you're at 67%.

Edited July 26, 2016 by Chris Davidson