The Education Forum

# Swan-Song -- Math Rules

## Recommended Posts

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:
THERE IS NO SLOW DOWN OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM - THERE IS NO 18 FPS, THEN 48 FPS, THEN 24 FPS IN THE ZAPRUDER FILM.

Wrong Einstein.

The original motorcycle clip was shot at 48fps slow motion.

Then, only progressive frames were extracted and used.

Then 2/3 of those progressive frames were removed.

You then posted a comment that I posted a clip in normal speed and then slows down.

Your reference to normal speed equals a film clip originally shot at 48fps slow-motion with 2/3 of the frames removed.

Guess what. 2/3 = 66.7% and you couldn't tell the difference. Use some math please.

I am now recreating this same conversion with a modern day video of a car moving at the pertinent speed.

48 24 18.3 hut hut hut.

• Replies 842
• Created

#### Posted Images

Wrong Einstein. The original motorcycle clip was shot at 48fps slow motion. Then, only progressive frames were extracted and used.

Then 2/3 of those progressive frames were removed. I am now recreating this same conversion with a modern day video of a car moving at the pertinent speed.

Uhh, big deal! None of this has ANYTHING to do with the Z film. The Z film is the evidence and it's amazing you can't seem to get this. You can't make evidence out of whole cloth, Chris. Jeez!

##### Share on other sites

Hopefully, you were able to view the slow-motion (48fps) version. If not, you'll have to let me know so I can try and put it into a more universal format.

A math way to look at the removal of 1/2 the frames from the 48fps slow-motion version is this:

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

2.622.. / 2 (1/2 frames removed) = 1.311.../1 ratio

1.311... x 18.3fps = 24fps

Think reconstruction video.

The inset (red border) is from David Healy's excellent primer.

The frame removal process is the body.

##### Share on other sites

The inset (red border) is from David Healy's excellent primer. The frame removal process is the body.

David Healey?! Another Fetzer acolyte? So you're a Fetzer acolyte, Chris?! No wonder.

This quote from the above:

I'm not forgetting Jim Fetzer, who's got the balls to shake up a few of the institutions involved (past and prersent [sic]) and demanding answers to some serious questions! Good job Dr. Jim...

I'm not a writer - so bear with me and the ramblings, then again you've probably figured that out!

Emphasis on *ramblings*

And Chris, they're going through all of this trouble to remove...what? What exactly did they take out, Chris? And don't answer with "frames" but what were they seeing in the film that was so scary that they had to go through all of this?

And how do YOU know what they had to remove, Chris, without you - or me, or anyone - even seeing the "original 48 FPS" to know, yourself, that "yes, they had to take out all of these frames because in the original there was....what, Chris?!

You can't answer this, Chris, because you don't know because you're imagining that "something" was removed from the film...but don't know what!?

Do you not see the insanity of all of this?!

##### Share on other sites

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.

I converted the 48fps slo-mo movie into a gif.

Even though the quality will not be as good as the .mov file, the viewing/fps speed will match the 1/2 and 1/3 versions.

Edited by Chris Davidson
##### Share on other sites

And your point, Chris? And have you determined why they went through all of this trouble? WHAT was in the so-called original 48 FPS film that the Bad Guys felt they needed to remove?

I'm waiting, Chris...

##### Share on other sites

Tom writes:

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.

This thread is about the alleged forgery of the Zapruder film. The first words in the first post are: "Zfilm alteration equation coming up." It is perfectly relevant to show why the assumption behind the thread is unjustified, and that there is no good reason to suppose that the Zapruder film has been faked.

If someone starts a thread in an attempt to illustrate the mechanism by which the moon landings footage was faked, would it not be reasonable to point out the faults in the assumption behind that thread, no matter how strongly the moon landings enthusiasts might want their beliefs to be protected from criticism?

##### Share on other sites

Tom writes:

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.

This thread is about the alleged forgery of the Zapruder film. The first words in the first post are: "Zfilm alteration equation coming up." It is perfectly relevant to show why the assumption behind the thread is unjustified, and that there is no good reason to suppose that the Zapruder film has been faked.

If someone starts a thread in an attempt to illustrate the mechanism by which the moon landings footage was faked, would it not be reasonable to point out the faults in the assumption behind that thread, no matter how strongly the moon landings enthusiasts might want their beliefs to be protected from criticism?

It's called "Math Rules." The posts that do not relate directly to the MATH are OT. Whether or not a blob is artificial, or whether the hole in the back of his skull can be hidden is NOT math. Thus it is OT and should be removed. You could of course post a thread called "The Extant Z-film is identical to the Original" as has been suggested, but instead you would rather pollute an existing thread that is not all inclusive.

BTW, when someone suggests a POSSIBLE explanation they are not saying it is an unquestionable fact, no matter how many times you take the statement out of context and present it as such. Nor when you label it an exaggerated claim.

You could just ask a polite question. For example, do you believe that the z-film was untouched but the moon landings films were faked?

By your logic any statement that involved assassination is ok in this thread.

Edited by Tom Neal
##### Share on other sites

Sorry Tom but this claim of blobs painted in, extra frames filmed and then taken out, and other nonsense is, to put it politely, way, way out there. I just find it hard to believe that rational people can make such irrational claims.

And I'm still waiting for everyone to tell me what the so-called original film showed that they had to go through all of this trouble in the first place. If none of you can give this a convincing answer and back it up with solid evidence, then any and all of these way, way out there claims are just that - way, way out there.

##### Share on other sites

Sorry Tom but this claim of blobs painted in, extra frames filmed and then taken out, and other nonsense is, to put it politely, way, way out there. I just find it hard to believe that rational people can make such irrational claims.

Your response to every item in my entire post is YOUR unsubstantiated personal opinion that I'm "way, way, out there." Yet you just demanded "solid evidence" from me and everyone else as to what was on the z-film that had to be hidden. Everyone has to follow your rules except you. If they don't you call them names.

"Nonsense" such as blood and brain matter seen by eyewitnesses at close range would appear on film but don't? This is nonsense and "way, way out there" is Solid evidence like you demand from others.

Sandy answered your question. You ignored his response, and once again reverted to 'I'm still waiting...'

Tom

Edited by Tom Neal
##### Share on other sites

This was posted over at the Sprocket Hole thread. It pretty much is a final answer from me on The 67% Solution thread (aka Swan Song). This forum is known as the Education Forum but if you don't want to be educated, then people who have the answers are wasting their time:

Sandy - The awful thing they (the bad guys) saw and had to get rid of was the Secret Service driver coming to a complete stop so that the final bullet could finish off Kennedy.
Sandy, You may want to watch this. From what I can see, it clearly shows the car slowing down and almost stopping before the head shot. I'm assuming you mean they tried to get it rid of that but it looks like it's still there to me:
Tom - Thanks! They? Only Walton says they couldn't do it.
BTW, could you proof-read my earlier post re JFK's invisible head wound due to shadow, the ridiculous-looking blob on the side of his head that is supposed to be an exit wound, and that all the eyewitness reports such as a 'bucket-of-blood' from the back of his head is not visible on the z-film?
Tom, I've never said nor doubted the buckets of blood as seen by witnesses. I'm sure you've seen the photo below so yes, we all know it was all over the place:
As I explained before, a consumer 8mm film camera with an adequate lens and zoomed in to a distant point is just not going to capture as much detail as you'd like to think, especially as compared to today when you can shoot something in HD with your phone. For the time, there's pretty decent detail as you can actually see a piece of brain fall out of this head right after 313.
But because his head was turned to the right toward the sun, the side of the head is illuminated. Unfortunately, the back was in shadow and in film - as in video - something always is lost when you have that much contrast between light and dark. I've shot over 300 special events in my career using \$10,000 cameras and \$5,000 lenses and even today, on a "hot" (hot as in bright with sunshine), you're constantly fighting the camera's iris to find that perfect shot. But when you do, even then, something is always too dark or too bright. It's just the way it is. The same goes for the Z film. You can see the whitish skull flap, the pink of the gore coming out of his head, but in the shadows and on a day full of light and dark, the back of the head loses a lot of detail.
You can even notice this darkness on the lower side of his head in the freeze frame below. And this was before the head shot:
The same goes for the blood. There's just no way a consumer camera circa 1963 is going to capture every single piece of brain matter and blood flying around after 313. It's just not possible.
Have you ever noticed in the Z film how even their faces kind of look not clear and slightly blurred? Again, this is the 8mm and an OK lens. As a comparison, look at this 35mm (I'm guessing) photo taken earlier with a much better lens. If Zapruder's camera had been 35mm and a great lens, we'd see a lot more detail:
As was mentioned numerous times here, you may be surprised to know that I'm far from being the only one who thinks the Z has not been faked. The ARRB hired Zavata and Milch to thoroughly investigate the film that was at NARA at the time and concluded that no alteration took place.
Now, if you then come back and say, "That's because there's some other "original" film out there that was shot at 48 FPS and showed some truly horrible things in and showed clear conspiracy and the bad guys took that film and removed 67% of the frames in it and painted a blob on Kennedys and so and so forth, then we're pretty much back to square one.
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. Because you're going to continue to believe what you want, and I'm going to continue to know what really happened.
The "same difference" goes to the The 67% Solution thread (aka Swan Song).
If you can't answer the above three questions conclusively - the same with Chris over on The 67% Solution - but want to continue posting and saying yes, it happened, there's a blob...there's 67% frames removed, then I can't help you.
##### Share on other sites

A quick refresher into the reality of ballistics.

Obviously didn't come from the 6th floor snipers nest.

Hi Chris

I see the ballistic coefficient for the 6.5mm Carcano bullet is given as .311. Was this, plus the rest of the info here, supplied by the FBI?

The reason I ask is that I have calculated a BC for this bullet as high as .521.

##### Share on other sites

Hi Chris

You asked me about the above figures on another thread. Sorry for taking so long to respond. I've had a lot of difficulty logging onto the Ed Forum in the last week or so.

The bullet described in this table is not exactly the same as a 6.5mm Carcano bullet fired from an M91/38 short rifle. For example, this bullet is .40" calibre, while the 6.5mm bullet is .256" calibre. This bullet had a muzzle velocity of 2325 fps, while Frazier found C2766 to have a muzzle velocity of only 2165 fps. Most importantly, this .40 calibre bullet has a ballistic coefficient of .196 (G1 drag curve model), while the round nosed 6.5mm Carcano bullet has a BC of approximately .311.

The BC is a measure of how much resistance a bullet encounters while travelling through the air, and the higher the BC is, the more streamlined the bullet is. The BC is directly related to how quickly a bullet begins to slow down after leaving the muzzle, and that determines how quickly a bullet drops in-flight. Long pointed bullets with tapering "boat tail" bases are the most streamlined, while round nosed (or flat nosed) bullets with flat bases are the least streamlined. The flat base is extremely detrimental, as a vacuum is created behind this base that gets filled by turbulent air spilling over the sharp corner of the base.

It is interesting that the two bullets are almost identical in weight, but that one has a BC of .196 and the other a BC of .311. It is likely due to the Carcano being a much smaller calibre, spreading the weight out over a much longer bullet and presenting a smaller, less resistive face. Whatever the case, I do not think a fair comparison can be made between the two bullets as far as bullet drop is concerned.

Robert,

This is from post #98

I took your suggestion and used .311

What I found out is the two variables that have the overwhelming impact on the results are "target speed" and "muzzle velocity".

##### Share on other sites

The same goes for the blood. There's just no way a consumer camera circa 1963 is going to capture every single piece of brain matter and blood flying around after 313. It's just not possible.

Just can't tell it straight can you? Your explanation that there's NO BLOOD at all is that the camera isn't going to capture every single piece of brain matter and blood. Your standard FALSE equivalence.

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.

However, to you this is Solid Evidence:

1. The blood is there, but you can't see it because I say the film can't see it. Except that there's visible blood in frame 313, but it isn't behind his head. There's visible blood the entire time the blob is visible - but no blood behind his head. So the camera and film CAN see blood, just not behind his head.

2. The hole in his head is there but it's in shadow and you can't see it, because I say you can't see it.

3. The blob is... you ignored this one. Well your answer would have been as lame as the other two "answers" anyway, but maybe this one can be even 'lamer.'

But why don't you tell me?

This entire concept of yours that this thread is nonsense is easily explainable. It's too complex for you to understand, so all you perceive is nonsense. To you it's like reading a foreign language that you don't understand. Rather than admit you don't understand you reject it as nonsense.

Let me take a page from your book. There is nothing mathematically wrong or even questionable with any of the MATH Chris has posted. Present Solid Evidence that is acceptable by MY standards (which is exactly what you demand from us) that his math is either right or wrong. Until you do this...well you know the rest. It's in every one of your posts. Until you do this then it is a given that it is simply TOO complicated for you to understand.

Because you're going to continue to believe what you want, and I'm going to continue to know what really happened.

We're going to "believe" and you're going to "know."

There it is in one line. God speaks. ARROGANCE beyond belief. Everything you have said has been countered with actual evidence yet you still KNOW that you are right, and we only have faith.

Who am I to argue with God?

This is my last response to this &&^^%\$\$.

(Psssst! He'll now accuse me of running away because he has overwhelmed me with his unquestionable wisdom...)

Michael Walton - IGNORE button SET. Ahhhhh...relief at last.

##### Share on other sites

Hey Chris,

I tried to PM you, is your mailbox full, or do you no longer accept PMs?

Tom

### Announcements

×

• #### Support

×
• Create New...
{"found_math": false, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 0, "mathjax_display_tex": 0, "mathjax_asciimath": 0, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 0, "wp_latex": 0, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0, "katex": 0, "math-container": 0, "wp-katex-eq": 0, "align": 0, "equation": 0, "x-ck12": 0, "texerror": 0}