Jump to content
The Education Forum

Swan-Song -- Math Rules


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 842
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

...being consistent with your "moon landing" theories about the film.

Please explain why, in your opinion, Chris's data is "moon landing" theory. Do you believe the landing was a hoax, or the theory that there were no landings is a hoax?
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

My wife is moving at approx 17mph. Purposely at this speed.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OdFFwaFQ5dXpfdGM/view?usp=sharing

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

My wife is moving at approx 17mph. Purposely at this speed.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OdFFwaFQ5dXpfdGM/view?usp=sharing

48fps/18.3fps = 2.622../1 ratio.

This next video is at a 2.52/1 ratio, close enough to the previous sentence.

I think you'll understand the concept after watching the video.

Arrow through this frame by frame and you will find the car moves forward in every frame.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OQmdlbWFpNm1ROWc/view?usp=sharing

I suggest downloading this and playing it. Google Drive site is having problems playing it.

Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Chris,

You are absolutely correct regarding the topic. The replies here (including my own) have become a blanket attack or defense of Z-film alteration. I apologize for my contribution to this, and will no longer post anything OT.

Any new reader of this thread will have to wade through argument after argument to follow the topic, so I'll go back and delete all my OT posts. IMO a moderator should remove all OT posts as this thread has definitely been hijacked. Chris and David should be allowed to present their work without interruption.

UPDATE: I have deleted all of my OT. I ask Michael and Jeremy to DELETE MY QUOTED STATEMENTS contained within their responses.

Edited by Tom Neal
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom,

I hope you'll make one small exception to your decision not to write posts that don't specifically refer to Chris's mathematics. In one of your self-deleted posts, you wrote:

"painting over" the back of JFK's head ... Photography experts working with the best possible copy of the film have stated that this is what is seen.


And I replied:

Which photographic experts are you referring to? Which copy of the film were they using?


I'm genuinely interested in finding out whether or not there is any credible evidence for this sort of forgery in the Zapruder film, especially as someone else had made a similar allegation earlier in this thread, again without providing a source for his claim.

As far as I'm aware, it is not possible to copy images from one Kodachrome film, such as the one Abraham Zapruder was using in his camera, onto another Kodachrome film, such as the one in the National Archives which some people think is not the one Zapruder was using in his camera, without creating anomalies such as increased grain, increased contrast, and inaccurate colour balance. Roland Zavada, who helped to invent Kodachrome, has examined the film in the National Archives. He concluded that the film does not possess any visible anomalies. I don't claim any expertise in this area myself, by the way, and I'll be happy to change my mind if I've misunderstood anything or if a more credible expert opinion can be cited. This is what Zavada had to say:

The film that exists at NARA was received from Time/Life, has all the characteristics of an original film per my report. The film medium, manufacturing markings, processing information, camera gate image characteristics, dye structure, full scale tonal range, support type, perforations and their quality, keeping shrinkage and fluting characteristcsics, feel, surface profile of the dye surface. It has no evidence of optical effects or matte work including granularity, edge effects or fringing, contrast buildup, etc.

(http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/zavada-hoax-comments-r1.pdf [138 KB])


The absence of these anomalies implies that the film in the Archives is indeed the one that Zapruder was using in his camera. This by itself rules out pretty much every type of forgery that has been proposed. But it may not rule out the type of forgery you mentioned: the application of coloured dye to a handful of frames of the film that had been in Zapruder's camera during the assassination.

Who are the photographic experts who claim that the back of JFK's head was painted over, and which copy of the film were they looking at?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeremy,

Chris and David are to be commended for NOT demanding a MOD delete your posts, which are definitely OT. And also for PATIENTLY continuing to answer your OT questions. *IF* they EVENTUALLY turned sarcastic or whatever you think, they CERTAINLY have every right to do so.

As far as answering your question, I have made my viewpoint on that subject PERFECTLY clear.

Unless your plan all along has been to destroy this thread with OT, thus forcing everyone to wade through your endless comments that do not belong in this thread, and anyone who happens to agree with the premise (I offer myself as an example) has to respond to your tactics. i.e. Ignore any question you can't answer, yet DEMAND that anyone who disagrees with you write a dissertation citing all references; and of course respond to the ever popular 'that was debunked years ago' - you have no reason to continue posting on this thread.

I note the following:

1. Per your MO you have not given a Yes/No response to my question re deleting my quoted posts contained within your posts, although you indirectly state that you know what I asked.

2. You posted yet another OT to ask me to do what I have stated I will not do, once again demonstrating that others are not worthy of courtesy, let alone respect for their wishes.

3. You did NOT stop the OT by simply starting a new thread asking the question you claim to be so desperate to hear answered. Why not? See my paragraph above - if the shoe fits...

4. OT is not allowed. Period. You haven't made even the LAMEST of apologies to Chris for polluting his thread.

Tom

Edited by Tom Neal
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, you can't be serious. Jeremy is one of the more reasoned and polite people on this forum.

To be honest, Tom, you have a lot of nerve saying that we're sarcastic. ...but you're #### right we're sarcastic

Let me get this straight, I have a lot of nerve for saying you're sarcastic, but you PROUDLY proclaim you're #### sarcastic.

You continue to miss the point - you are STILL posting OT with complete disregard for the rules and the rights of others. This proves everything I've said. Take your topic to a new thread.

I've read you elsewhere on this forum and I thought you had a reasonably sane and nuanced voice here.

Sane and nuanced I was -- until I disagreed with you - that's all it took... BTW, as you well know, in the past I defended you several times when you ruffled feathers here. Now that I know you, I no longer do that.

Like the 'best-mannered poster' on this site, Jeremy, you continue to post OT on this thread, and do not even do me the courtesy of removing my quoted text.

Edited by Tom Neal
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom,

Thank you for putting this topic back onto the straight and narrow.

Much appreciated,

chris

Thanks, Chris.

Sadly, at least one of the duo continues to post here OT...

I REQUEST THAT A MODERATOR REMOVE MY QUOTED RESPONSES FROM MICHAEL AND JEREMY'S POSTS [357, 364, 365, 373 & 376] AS NEITHER ONE HAS COMPLIED WITH MY REQUEST TO DO SO, OR EVEN ACKNOWLEDGED MY POLITE REQUEST.

Tom

Edited by Tom Neal
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...