The Education Forum

# Swan-Song -- Math Rules

## Recommended Posts

The station# that is PositionA along JFK's path = 280.3 (inside blue box)

The location of the initial data input for CE884 = Station# 329.2 (blue arrow)

That difference in distance = 48.9ft.

This equals the same distance from CE884 extant z255-z313. (Apples to Apples)

The elevation difference is almost the same, a difference of .01ft x 18.3ft = .183ft = 2.196 inches

• Replies 842
• Created

#### Posted Images

So connect the dots Chris...  the earliest we have on film is z133, not 161.
And 161 was really 168 as determined by WEST

Why wouldn't they have found where 133 was since that is the first frame WE SEE with the limo...  (other than hiding the shot at 157)?
If the limo did actually make that wide turn...  what does that do to the analysis?

DJ

This - to me - sounds as if POSITION A was deemed to be along the route of the limo...

Mr. SHANEYFELT. The first position we established that morning was frame 161.
Mr. SPECTER. Was there not a position established prior in sequence to frame 161, specifically that designated as position A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That was actually established later. But the first one to be actually located was 161. And we went back later and positioned point A.
Mr. SPECTER. Well, let's start with the position which is the most easterly point on Elm Street, which I believe would be position A, would it not?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Have you a photographic exhibit depicting that position?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; in each of the positions that we established, we used, insofar as possible, the Zapruder pictures to establish the position, or we established it from the window, and made photographs from the position Mr. Zapruder was standing in.
Mr. SPECTER. This chart has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 886.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This shows the photograph that was made from the point where Zapruder was standing looking toward the car, and is a point that we have designated as position A because it is in a position that did not appear on the Zapruder film
The Zapruder film does not start until the car gets farther down Elm Street.

And this shows how there never was a change incorporating the 10" change AT STREET LEVEL... only at rifle muzzle level and only when needed... which does not move the limo forward 15.25'.

Mr. SPECTER. Was there any prior position, that is a position before position A, where the marksman from the sixth floor could have fired the weapon and have struck the President at the known point of entry at the base of the back of his neck?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; because as the car moves back, you lose sight of the chalk mark on the back of his coat.
Mr. SPECTER. And what is the distance between that point on the President and station C?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is 44 feet from station C--91.6 feet to the rifle in the window from the actual chalk mark on the coat. All measurements were made to the chalk mark on the coat.
Mr. SPECTER. On the coat of the President?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. The President's stand-in?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Right. The angle to the rifle in the window was 40b010'.
Mr. SPECTER. And what is the other data?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The distance to the overpass was 447 feet, and the angle to the overpass was minus 0b027'; that is, 27' below the horizontal.

##### Share on other sites

Per the previous post, you should keep this in mind as we are talking about end points (Apples to Apples), in relation to elevation and street distance syncing.

##### Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Per the previous post, you should keep this in mind as we are talking about end points (Apples to Apples), in relation to elevation and street distance syncing.

As a rebuttal  to this, these figures make no sense. Why?

Because  the film that's  currently on YTV shows conspiracy. In other words, why go through all of this film alteration - as Chris stated on the very first post of this thread - and *leave in* the very parts that show conspiracy?

It makes no sense  whatsoever.

Further Chris seems to think that the head explosion should  supposedly be graphic especially  out the back of the head.

I  ask...why? There's  plenty of gore in the existing film but you're  not going  to  see  the  level of detail with Z's camera.

##### Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

As a rebuttal  to this, these figures make no sense. Why?

They make perfect sense to about the 1% who are intelligent enough to follow.

What's wrong, even when spoon-fed, are you having troubles ingesting information?

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

Per the previous post, you should keep this in mind as we are talking about end points (Apples to Apples), in relation to elevation and street distance syncing.

Refer back a few posts to CE884 with blue boxes.

The elevation difference between PositionA and extant z161 = 2.72ft

The elevation difference between PositionA and extant z313 = 10.22ft

The elevation difference between extant z161 and z313 = 7.5ft

Elevation of PositionA minus the ( elevation difference between extant z161 and z313) = 2.72ft = elevation difference between PositionA and extant z161.

Would anyone care to inform Walton and the rest what the WC was hiding with this math?

I'll give you a hint:

.22ft difference = 4.02ft

##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

And 161 was really 168 as determined by WEST

No,

West didn't determine any frame #'s.

Robert West testifying via the Clay Shaw trial below:

Why wouldn't they have found where 133 was since that is the first frame WE SEE with the limo...

They did find extant133, some of it has been connected to the overall equation I furnished earlier involving the 30.86ft difference.

If the limo did actually make that wide turn...  what does that do to the analysis?

Wait until the analysis is through, unless someone provides proof that it actually occurred.

DJ

This - to me - sounds as if POSITION A was deemed to be along the route of the limo...

It was, at least for syncing the math.

Whether it was the legitimate route, I've already expressed that for now, I don't have any way of showing it took the wide turn.

But, with the oncoming introduction of some frame counting from Position A, I'll let you draw your own conclusion.

And this shows how there never was a change incorporating the 10" change AT STREET LEVEL... only at rifle muzzle level and only when needed... which does not move the limo forward 15.25'.

I believe there is a difference of 15.25ft, just not where we expected it to appear.

Still to come.

Chris

##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

They make perfect sense to about the 1% who are intelligent enough to follow.

What's wrong, even when spoon-fed, are you having troubles ingesting information?

Here you go Chris.  I guess there are quite a few 1% folks out there who also don't agree with these outrageous claims of fakery. I'm not going to tell you where I got these quotes. I figure you're a big boy and can look them up yourself.  But they're all documented and they've even been written by pro- Warren Commision supporters. I guess there are 1% folks on both sides of the aisle. And one of the quotes here is from someone your buddy Dave Josephs has the "utmost respect" for.

So you see, Chris, it's not just me - there are many folks out there who think what you're doing here makes absolutely no sense at all, just like it makes no sense when you think shots came from the pavilion.

When the Zapruder film was first shown on American television in 1975, it created a public outcry so great that Congress had little choice but to reopen the Kenendy case. The sight of President Kennedy's head snapping violently backwards by several inches in just a few 18ths of a second appeared to most as obvious evidence of a frontal shot. As Congressman Thomas N. Downing noted after a private viewing of the film on April 15, 1975, "It convinced me that there was more than one assassin."

The alteration argument vis-à-vis the Zapruder film has been prone to a certain illiteracy regarding the mechanics and science of special-effects filmmaking, specifically the use of the optical printer, which ranges from mildly informed to wildly uninformed, even as the whole of the argument requires intervention of such machines. Roland Zavada, a retired Kodak specialist hired by the ARRB to authenticate the Zapruder film, explained technical issues mitigating against alteration in a patient, if somewhat exasperated, response to Doug Horne’s theories and criticism published in the fourth volume of Horne’s Inside the Assassination Record Review Board.4 The substance of Zavada’s response can be, and is, supported by relevant professional technical and descriptive texts, as well as, if sought, personal affidavit from technicians experienced in practical application of optical printers for celluloid-based motion pictures (a skill set largely displaced since the advent of digital technologies).

Any element within the frame said to have been removed from the Zapruder film would require an equal consistent element to replace it; for instance, removing a bystander from the Dealey Plaza lawn would require additonal lawn in place for the requisite number of frames, just as a replaced bystander closer to Elm Street would require a replacement background consistent with what already is visible (portions of road, sidewalk, landscaping and other persons). These replacement elements must also adjust plausibly in perspective as Zapruder’s camera drifts and pans, and blur when the camera is unsteady. Again, this is long before digital technologies, and the workspace of each individual celluloid frame was 8mm in diameter.

##### Share on other sites

Mr. Walton, if there is nothing unusual going on in regards to the Z-film, why did the original survey data get altered? A few years back Mr. Tom Purvis got copies of the original survey work from Robert West, the surveyor. If nothing strange is going on, why did data for frame 161 get changed to frame 166? Mr. West the surveyor didn't change it...but when it was entered into the record for the WC report, it was altered. This would suggest that the data which was to coincide with the original film was changed to match the film we now have.

Is there any other LOGICAL reason for a NON-surveyor to change the surveyor's data? If so, I'm open to your evidence.

##### Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

Mr. Walton, if there is nothing unusual going on in regards to the Z-film, why did the original survey data get altered? A few years back Mr. Tom Purvis got copies of the original survey work from Robert West, the surveyor. If nothing strange is going on, why did data for frame 161 get changed to frame 166? Mr. West the surveyor didn't change it...but when it was entered into the record for the WC report, it was altered. This would suggest that the data which was to coincide with the original film was changed to match the film we now have.

Is there any other LOGICAL reason for a NON-surveyor to change the surveyor's data? If so, I'm open to your evidence.

I posted several statements above from others about why the film was not faked. Scroll up and read it.  Keep in mind these are not my writings but they are people I personally agree with. On Kennedys and King, Jeff Carter wrote a multi-part essay on this very thing. Search and you will find it. For what it's worth, Dave Josephs, who never once has agreed with ANYTHING I've EVER said on this board, said he has the "utmost respect" for Jeff Carter. Go figure...

Then several posts back in this thread another guy on here posted a question to CD and I volunteered a reply which I'm copying below. Bottom line is the FBI agents who made the diorama made a mistake. People make mistakes but it's ridiculous that Chris and Dave will project this mistake onto a full-blown film alteration theory with calculations and recalculations that John Nash would have a hard time figuring out. Keep in mind that CD thinks the original film was filmed at 48 FPS and 72% of the frames were removed (he used to say it was 67%). He has said this with a straight face with no irony in the fact that the film would be a complete and utter mess if this was actually true.

***

Eddy,

Let me see if I can help you understand and boil down Chris and Dave's math theory to the bare essentials.

The bottom line is two FBI guys made a diorama of Dealey Plaza the weekend of the murder.  The first version of their diorama showed little toy cars on Elm Street in the position of the shots. They obviously made a mistake because for the Z313 shot - the head shot - they had the car way down almost right next to the knoll steps where the old guys were standing.  We all know that that's not what really happened.

Now try to keep an open mind here.  But how do we know that the head shot did not happen way down there?  It's simple - you just have to watch the existing Zapruder film.  And even better, you can also watch the Nix film.  As a matter of fact, there exists a video on YTV where someone took both of the films and matched them up frame per frame.  The end result proves two things: 1) both films match up perfectly; 2) both films prove that the FBI guys who made their diorama got it wrong.

That, in a nutshell, is basically it. The FBI guys made a mistake.  And during that weekend, the diorama was corrected and the head shot was brought up to where it's supposed to be, more or less the same position as what we see in the Z film and also the Nix film.

Simple, right?  Not according to Chris and Dave.  The Math Team here thinks that something far more sinister happened.  They think that an entirely different Z film exists showing shots that actually happened way down by the steps and the old guys. They also believe that the Z film that we can see on YTV was actually filmed in 48 FPS, and then, sneakily and sinisterly, the Bad Secret Agents took out 67% of those frames.  It *used to be* 67% but now Chris is saying it's 72% of the frames.  But anyway, these removed frames removed enough of the footage to move the shots to where we basically see them on any YTV Zapruder copy.

So where does the Math come in? The FBI also did a survey of Dealey so Chris and Dave here are using Math and Geometry to further "prove" that this non-existent secret never-before-seen-by-the-public Z film exists. That's what it all boils down to.

Now keep in mind here that Dave Josephs, who is completely and totally anti-WC, meaning he supposedly does not believe *anything* in that written record, will actually pick and choose from that lying xxxx of a document to further "solve" this theory. In other words, he doesn't believe the WC except when it helps him "prove" one of this theories.

And now, their more recent exciting and revealing solution to this theory is the Tina Towner film has been discovered to be fake as well(!)

But anyway, this is basically what they're doing - they're adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing, and formulizing the numbers - and numbers from those numbers - from the surveys to prove all of this. They're both playing the John Nash secret agent role here.  Remember that?

No matter what you tell them - that there's only one Z film and that film *proves conspiracy* because the shooting sequence completely negates the ridiculous SBT - neither of them will listen.  In their minds, they're 100% correct and deep into this theory of numbers and missing frames and fake films and the lying liars FBI agents.

##### Share on other sites

The diorama was NOT used to make the survey. An actual surveyor in Dealy Plaza performed the survey.

HONEST.

And the surveyor DID NOT build the diorama.

Are you still with me?

The truth is, the shot at Z313 has always been at the spot where Z313 is now said to have occurred. What you're missing is that according to the testimony of AP photographer James Altgens, there was a shot at the spot surveyed as 4.96, right next to his position, which some equate to Z328.  That would be the second head shot that some witnesses claim to occur...which was not far from the knoll steps you mentioned.

So...how does THIS cause the data for Z161 to change? Truth is, it doesn't...if you're being honest. It's not as if the Z-film was locked away from Time-Life Inc., the Secret Service, or the FBI when the surveys for each of them was done by Mr. West's company. In fact, they had the ONLY copies. And they were used to plot the survey positions for each of the points in the data blocks...EXCEPT for the altered data block entered into evidence by the WC. Mr. West had said that his firm had nothing to do with the altered data.

##### Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

The station# that is PositionA along JFK's path = 280.3 (inside blue box

PositionA residing on JFK's path = Station#280.3   (leftside blue box)

StationC resides at                            Station# 234.5.    (rightside blue box)

Difference =                                                          45.8ft

45.8ft/18.3ft = 2.5ft elevation change when total distance retains the 3.13degree slope.

Difference between PositionA elevation 428.7 and 418.48 (z313) 10ft - 7.5ft  (z161 to z313 elevation change) = 2.5ft elevation change

7.5ft/10ft = .75

10ft/7.5ft = 1.333...

##### Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

The diorama was NOT used to make the survey. An actual surveyor in Dealy Plaza performed the survey.

HONEST.

And the surveyor DID NOT build the diorama.

Are you still with me?

I never said that.  I said the diorama was made and the survey was done. That's all I said. And I also said the diorama was made incorrectly. That's all. But if you want to think that all of this crazy alteration took place, then be my guest. Crazy theories don't happen in real life, though, Mark. It was much much easier to have a so-called blue-ribbon panel like the WC rubber stamp everything to reach the "Oswald did it alone" conclusion.

Sigh...

As I said Mark the film *shows* conspiracy. I'm not the only one who said this so don't take my word for it if it makes you happy. But it shows conspiracy. The shooting sequence alone proves that one man from behind could not have pulled off all of the shots. John Connally corroborated this in his statement

Put another way, why isn't this good enough for you, Chris, Dave, and many many others? Why does it always have to be more with you guys? The film and an Oswald clone and on and on...?

Are you still with me?

No, I'm not with you. I'm not with *any* of you. I never have been and never will be.

##### Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

PositionA residing on JFK's path = Station#280.3   (leftside blue box)

StationC resides at                            Station# 234.5.    (rightside blue box)

Difference =                                                          45.8ft

45.8ft/18.3ft = 2.5ft elevation change when total distance retains the 3.13degree slope.

Difference between PositionA elevation 428.7 and 418.48 (z313) 10ft - 7.5ft  (z161 to z313 elevation change) = 2.5ft elevation change

7.5ft/10ft = .75

10ft/7.5ft = 1.333...

The "official" WC documentation put the distance between StationC and extant z161@ 94.7ft.

If you care to use my "unofficial" path described above, my distance = 45.8ft + 48.9ft = 94.7ft.

The same distance. What a surprise.

Can you guess what geometric shape is formed when combining the official and unofficial paths?

##### Share on other sites

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

### Announcements

×

• #### Support

×
• Create New...