Jump to content
The Education Forum

Swan-Song -- Math Rules


Chris Davidson
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 842
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[...]

If that's what you'll then say, then YOU - not me - have to then prove three things:

1. What was so terrible in this "other" film that the Bad Guys went through all of the trouble of altering it?

2. Where is this other film?

3. How do YOU (and Chris, Dave, Dave, Jim Fetzer and others) know what was in it if the film has NEVER been seen before?

If you can't answer these three questions conclusively, then I'm sorry to say but the whole Z film alteration theory collapses like a deck of cards. Then if you can't answer them but want to keep playing Whack A Mole here, jumping around from topic to topic, then it'd probably be a good idea to just wrap this up.

There's that standard DEMAND again. You have to PROVE nothing, just make a lame remark, and we're all supposed to bow to you. But we have to prove to you, someone who's mind is already made up and doesn't listen. There is nothing that will satisfy you on this subject, because you reject ALL evidence as inadequate that contradicts your belief. Period.

[...]

Typical lone nut-disinfo dance, Tom. We've been calling them on their BS everywhere else except here, for some unfathomable reason... They simply can not defend the 1964 WCR conclusions, so the trolls dance. And not very well at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next,

I took the 2/3 removed frame video, flopped/rotated/ it so the lexus and limo are traveling the approx same direction and overlaid (aligned front of cars) one onto the other starting at z171.

To begin with, this is playing at 2fps so you get an idea of the individual speed movement between both cars.

The limo's white visor compared to the lexus should help.

If you do not have login privileges, you'll have to download it from Google Drive here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005ONTk4UTEzSWZCN1U/view?usp=sharing

2fps comp.mov

Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The speed of the limo from z154-z166 is (23.05ft per sec) 15.68mph.

In 5 more frames up to z171, I will make the assumption it is traveling the same speed.

So, z154-z171= 15.68mph.

CE884 the orange version, z171-z185 = 17.18mph

CE884 the orange version, z185-z186 = 18.673 mph

The above speeds of the extant zfilm would appear to be more representative of what we see at this point in time.

chris

Brought this forward just to refresh your memory, as it pertains to the previous videos.

I did make a mistake, the speed from z171-z185 = 17.07mph, not 17.18mph

z171-z186 = 17.18 mph

z185-z186 = 18.67 mph

Keep in mind, this is from the orange colored CE884 (it resides on the 1964 WC final plat) which was never released to the public.

It is supposed to be based on a 18.3fps movie. We'll see about that in the near future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason I filmed my wife moving at 17mph in the lexus video was because of this area in Z.

Referring back to the overlaid video, if you look at z207, you'll notice the Lexus front is at the end of the Stemmons sign while the limo is 3 frames faster

The video starts at z171 to z207 = 36frames.

If the limo was 3 frames faster in that span the ratio would be 36/33 or 1.090909…./1

Its apparent at some point the limo starts moving a little faster than the lexus.

If my wife was traveling at approx the same speed as z171-z185 = 17.07mph, then the limo at 1.09/1 faster than that is:

17.07 x 1.09 = 18.60 mph

The speed determination for z185-186 = 18.68mph

207.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now look at the next span of frames on CE884 z186-z207 = 20.3ft traveled in 21 frames.

Converted using a 18.3fps rate = 21/18.3 = 1.147

20.3ft /1.147 = 17.69ft per sec / 1.47(1mph) = 12.04mph. That's a no-no as we know according to the extant film it is traveling at approx 18.68mph though this span.

21 FRAMES TO WORK WITH.

28.4FPS = 28.4/21 = 1.352 X 20.3FT = 27.45FT PER SEC /1.47 = 18.68MPH

Please don't assume (some people) that I'm saying someone was shooting a camera at 28.4fps through this sequence.

The 28.4 figure comes as a result of a step down process in frame rates.

And one only has to compare both CE884's to each other to find out the WC moved the position of Station# 3+29.2 back 7 frames from z168 to z161.

Cased closed.

But there's more MATH to go.

186-207.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An overall frames equation goes like this:

486-133 = 353 frames

353 x 2.622 = 925.56

925.56/2 = 462.78

462.78 - 353 = 109.78

109.78/462.78 = .237

.237/2 = .1186

.1186 + .5 = .6186

1 - .6186 = .3814

18.3/48 = .38125

The closest whole frame reproduction would have been .625 = 5/8

.625 - .6186 = .0064

.0064 x 925.56 = 5.92 = next whole frame at 6 frames. Need to lose 6 and were at whole frames.

Think limo frame span for CE884's z161-166 and z161-168 right in the middle is 6.

Not quite 2/3 frame removal (think 28.4fps) but close enough for gubermint work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris,

I'm sure your mathematical calculations are exemplary, but there are two serious problems with your approach.

The first is the 'so what?' problem. Even if you are able to come up with a way of showing that the data in Commission Exhibit 884 (Hearings and Exhibits, vol.17, p.902; see also p.901) is consistent with a hypothetical ur-Zapruder film which contained more frames than the actual Zapruder film, so what? If there's a conflict between the data in CE 884 and what we see in the Zapruder film, the obvious answer is not that the Zapruder film has been faked by having frames removed, but simply that the data in CE 884 is wrong. What grounds do you have for assuming that CE 884 is accurate?

The second problem is that, according to expert opinion, the type of forgery you are claiming for the Zapruder film cannot have happened. My understanding is that copying images from one Kodachrome film onto another Kodachrome film will inevitably increase the grain and contrast and will distort the colour balance. Roland Zavada, who helped to invent Kodachrome, examined the film in the National Archives and found that it does not contain any of these anomalies:

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 characteristics, 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])


According to Prof Raymond Fielding, such visual anomalies would have been obvious:

in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the technology then available ... if such an attempt at image manipulation of the footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived scrutiny, and ... challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA footage and assertions of image manipulation, as are suggested by Mr Healy in the document that you [Zavada] sent me, are technically naïve.

(Roland Zavada's response to chapter 14 of Douglas Horne's Inside the ARRB: http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf [7MB])


If these two acknowledged experts are correct, the Zapruder film in the National Archives cannot have had any frames removed (apart from the uncontroversial splicing), and it cannot be a copy of another film. It must be the film that was in Zapruder's camera during the assassination. That, I'm afraid, is the final nail in the coffin of the 'Zapruder film is a fake' theory.

In the absence of a more credible expert opinion, we are obliged to conclude that the extant Zapruder film is genuine. Do you know of any experts who have examined the film in the Archives and whose opinions contradict those of Zavada and Fielding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeremy,

Are you that short-sighted that you do not understand what I just showed with the video overlay?

If you don't understand this part, wait until I introduce the FBI sync, talk about someone's belief system being completely destroyed.

Maybe another member will step in and explain the significance of the previous few posts to spare you the pain.

The extant film process has been recreated. The math works, it's the film that is bogus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brought this forward just to refresh your memory, as it pertains to the previous videos.

I did make a mistake, the speed from z171-z185 = 17.07mph, not 17.18mph

z171-z186 = 17.18 mph

z185-z186 = 18.67 mph

Keep in mind, this is from the orange colored CE884 (it resides on the 1964 WC final plat) which was never released to the public.

It is supposed to be based on a 18.3fps movie. We'll see about that in the near future.

The concept is simple.

When you increase the amount of frames between point A and B, you slow down the limo's speed between that span.

For instance:

Changing the frame designation for Station 3+29.2 from Z171 to z166 is going to slow down the limo speed.

Instead of 17.07mph@ z171-185 (14 frame span), moving it back to z166 now creates a 19 frame span @19.2ft traveled.

19frames/18.3fps = 1.038

19.2ft/1.038 = 18.5ft per sec = 12.58mph.

Adding 5 frames just reduced the limo speed from 17.07 to 12.58mph.

The 4.49 mph difference over 1 second = 6.6ft that also needs to be accounted for.

Look at the next span of frames on CE884 z186-z207 = 20.3ft traveled in 21 frames.

Converted using a 18.3fps rate = 21/18.3 = 1.147

20.3ft /1.147 = 17.69ft per sec / 1.47(1mph) = 12.04mph.

The overlay movie along with orange CE884 shows the limo traveling between 17.07 and 18.6 mph at this point.

It's quite obvious why the frame number assigned to the same Station# was changed.

The WC created a uniformed speed to match what you see on film.

Unfortunately for them, the uniformed speed should be between 17.07 and 18.68 mph as is seen with the lexus overlay video.

Added on edit:

CE884%20compare.jpg

Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brought this forward just to refresh your memory, as it pertains to the previous videos.

I did make a mistake, the speed from z171-z185 = 17.07mph, not 17.18mph

z171-z186 = 17.18 mph

z185-z186 = 18.67 mph

Keep in mind, this is from the orange colored CE884 (it resides on the 1964 WC final plat) which was never released to the public.

It is supposed to be based on a 18.3fps movie. We'll see about that in the near future.

The concept is simple.

When you increase the amount of frames between point A and B, you slow down the limo's speed between that span.

For instance:

Changing the frame designation for Station 3+29.2 from Z171 to z166 is going to slow down the limo speed.

Instead of 17.07mph@ z171-185 (14 frame span), moving it back to z166 now creates a 19 frame span @19.2ft traveled.

19frames/18.3fps = 1.038

19.2ft/1.038 = 18.5ft per sec = 12.58mph.

Adding 5 frames just reduced the limo speed from 17.07 to 12.58mph.

The 4.49 mph difference over 1 second = 6.6ft that also needs to be accounted for.

Look at the next span of frames on CE884 z186-z207 = 20.3ft traveled in 21 frames.

Converted using a 18.3fps rate = 21/18.3 = 1.147

20.3ft /1.147 = 17.69ft per sec / 1.47(1mph) = 12.04mph.

The overlay movie along with orange CE884 shows the limo traveling between 17.07 and 18.6 mph at this point.

It's quite obvious why the frame number assigned to the same Station# was changed.

The WC created a uniformed speed to match what you see on film.

Unfortunately for them, the uniformed speed should be between 17.07 and 18.68 mph as is seen with the lexus overlay video.

Added on edit:

CE884%20compare.jpg

A VERY good, and VERY simple explanation, Chris.

Tom

Edited by Tom Neal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

If that's what you'll then say, then YOU - not me - have to then prove three things:

1. What was so terrible in this "other" film that the Bad Guys went through all of the trouble of altering it?

2. Where is this other film?

3. How do YOU (and Chris, Dave, Dave, Jim Fetzer and others) know what was in it if the film has NEVER been seen before?

If you can't answer these three questions conclusively, then I'm sorry to say but the whole Z film alteration theory collapses like a deck of cards. Then if you can't answer them but want to keep playing Whack A Mole here, jumping around from topic to topic, then it'd probably be a good idea to just wrap this up.

There's that standard DEMAND again. You have to PROVE nothing, just make a lame remark, and we're all supposed to bow to you. But we have to prove to you, someone who's mind is already made up and doesn't listen. There is nothing that will satisfy you on this subject, because you reject ALL evidence as inadequate that contradicts your belief. Period.

[...]

Typical lone nut-disinfo dance, Tom. We've been calling them on their BS everywhere else except here, for some unfathomable reason... They simply can not defend the 1964 WCR conclusions, so the trolls dance. And not very well at that.

Thanks David. Couldn't agree more.

BTW, what other sites are they 'blessing with their presence'? Isn't it CUTE when they say they don't think they can "CONTINUE TO HELP US" and then follow it up by stating that we are "delusional" and just generally too stupid to understand?

Edited by Tom Neal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If my wife was traveling at approx the same speed as z171-z185 = 17.07mph, then the limo at 1.09/1 faster than that is:

17.07 x 1.09 = 18.60 mph

In the overall equation I first split the original 925+ frames in half.

The first step in reducing frames. imo

Applying this concept to the span of z171-z207 which is 36 frames @ 41ft traveled

36frames/24fps = 1.5 seconds

41ft / 1.5seconds = 27.33ft per sec = 18.594 mph

This matches the limo/lexus overlay video.

Added on edit: It also matches the reconstruction video.

Edited by Chris Davidson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris writes:

The extant film process has been recreated. The math works, it's the film that is bogus.


Alternatively, as I've been pointing out for ages, it's the assumptions behind your calculations that are bogus. As I wrote earlier:

Even if you are able to come up with a way of showing that the data in Commission Exhibit 884 is consistent with a hypothetical ur-Zapruder film which contained more frames than the actual Zapruder film, so what? If there's a conflict between the data in CE 884 and what we see in the Zapruder film, the obvious answer is not that the Zapruder film has been faked by having frames removed, but simply that the data in CE 884 is wrong. What grounds do you have for assuming that CE 884 is accurate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...