Splice in Tina Towner Film

[Chris Davidson]

51 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Michael Walton writes:

You'd think that it would be in his own interests to make his case as clearly as possible, rather than simply pump out these cryptic equations which, I'd guess, just make most readers' eyes glaze over. That's if he's confident about what he's saying, of course. If he isn't, then it makes sense to keep everything as vague as possible, to disguise the weaknesses.

There was actually a hint at an explanation in an earlier post:

Again we are presented with a mention of CE 884 without any discussion of why the figures in that document cannot be trusted. It's still very cryptic, but, filling in the gaps, the full reasoning seems to go something like this:

1 - Tina Towner's film is 30 feet long, and contains 167 frames.
2 - The FBI's figures in CE 884 do not correspond to what we see on the film.
3 - This discrepancy means either that the extant film is inauthentic or that the data in CE 884 is wrong.
4 - We know that the FBI fiddled at least some of the figures in CE 884.
5 - Because at least some of the data in CE 884 was made up, there is no reason to assume that CE 884 provides an accurate reflection of what the FBI saw in any of the assassination films.
6 - Because the data in CE 884 is untrustworthy, it has nothing to tell us about the authenticity of any of the assassination films.

Chris seems to have come around at last to the common-sense point of view that you can't use the unreliable data in CE 884 as evidence that any of the assassination films are in some way fake.

 

Now you're trying to summarize. 

Tina Towner's film 30ft long!!!!

Stop while you're ahead way behind.

The denseness is getting very thick.

[Chris Davidson]

All one has to do is plot Bell's end of film frame on Houston St, with his beginning frame onto Elm St. (SELECTIVE SPLICING) is what I refer to it as.

Then plot that object (if you even know what it is) from Z193, find where those LOS's intersect, and realize this is exactly the area Myers has that object travel it's miraculous 14.2mph.

Even when shown, it takes a little effort (not much) to understand it.

But, I'm not holding my breath.

BTW, guess what film Myer's doesn't include on Houston St in his multi-sync document?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005ORVpTdTN2dVZhV1E/view?usp=sharing

 

[David Josephs]

On 4/26/2017 at 5:32 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Michael Walton writes:

Some readers will recall the crazy mathematics thread ( http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/22692-swan-song-math-rules/ ), in which Chris poured out pages and pages of cryptic equations with only hints as to their significance. Here we go again: a new series of cryptic equations, with only hints as to their significance. I'm sure Chris could explain his argument fully in coherent English sentences if he wanted to. The problem is that doing so would make it obvious to everyone that his claim is very flimsy indeed.

With the current thread, as with the crazy mathematics thread, the clue is in the mention of Commission Exhibit 884, the FBI's interpretation of the limousine's position on Elm Street when the various shots were fired. There is a contradiction between, on the one hand, what we see in the Zapruder and Towner films, and, on the other hand, some of the locations given in CE 884. If the figures in CE 884 are correct, it is difficult to see how the extant films can be authentic. Alternatively, of course, if the figures in CE 884 are not correct, they give us no good reason to conclude that the films are not authentic. Chris's assumption (unstated, wisely) seems to be that the FBI must have based its figures on the genuine, original and unaltered Zapruder film. His unstated conclusion seems to be that the Zapruder and Towner films that now exist are altered versions of the originals.

Pat Speer pointed out the problem with this interpretation last October in a post that, unsurprisingly, no film-alteration enthusiast has yet responded to ( http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/18205-forwarned/&page=4 ):

There is a perfectly good common-sense explanation for the contradiction between the films and the FBI's documentation: the FBI's figures are wrong. And there is a perfectly good common-sense explanation for the FBI's figures being wrong: the Bureau fiddled the figures in an attempt to make the lone-gunman nonsense look plausible. If the figures in CE 884 have been fiddled, all of the mathematical equations that refer to those figures are worthless; they demonstrate nothing. The equations give us no good reason to suppose that the films are inauthentic.

Michael also writes:

It's curious that those who promote film-alteration theories almost never explain what the conspirators would have hoped to achieve by altering films and photographs. That's hardly surprising because, especially with the Zapruder film, there isn't even much agreement about exactly which alterations were made.

People seem to be attracted to film-alteration theories not because the theories explain anything worthwhile about the assassination, but simply because the theories supply an extra conspiracy to believe in. It's one thing to accept the evidence that a conspiracy of some sort was responsible for the assassination of JFK and the framing of Oswald. But if you're naturally attracted to conspiracies as an explanation for events, how much more exciting it must be to believe that the Bad Guys also magically altered half a dozen or more home movies and photographs, and that they magically shot Governor Connally from behind despite firing bullets only from in front, and that they magically whisked JFK's body away from Air Force One without anyone noticing, and that they magically impersonated Oswald and his mother for over a decade for no obvious reason. The larger and more elaborate the conspiracy that's being proposed, the more attractive it becomes to some people. To rational people, on the other hand, the larger and more elaborate the conspiracy that's being proposed, the less credible it becomes in principle.

 

Continues to amaze me that intelligent people cannot be more open to work which they do not understand as opposed to this kind of response which piles ignorance on top of a complete lack of curiosity.

Pat Speer is a wonderful researcher and presenter...  yet not everything is "gospel" simply because he has a chapter on it.  In the link you offer Pat addresses my post with an offered conclusion which is simply not correct.

Quote

I discuss this in detail on my website, David. The first survey had the third shot head shot within a few feet of where the head shot is shown on the Z-film. The SS and FBI then did new surveys in which they suddenly claimed the head shot was well down the street from this location. This stretched out the shooting sequence and gave Oswald more time to fire the shots. The SS and FBI, apparently, never dreamed the WC would double-check their work. The WC, however, tried to resolve the issue, and called a series of meetings in which the SS and FBI watched the Z-film with them, and argued for their scenarios. This led to the realization the SS and FBI were blowing smoke, and thus, more re-enactments.

This comes from the first series of surveys for which only a small handful of people have the original notes WEST wrote during these surveys.  The headshot - we all agree - is shown on z313 of the film.  The following, CE585, was inadvertently left in the evidence and shows that the original surveys.  Add back WEST's notes and we find that before the last survey z313 was shot #2.  

The "more re-enactments" mentioned by Pat was the final surveys where CE884 was created.  it places the last shot at z313 and simply removes the final WCD298 shot.

 

WCD298 has z313 as shot #2 and a linear distance for shot #3 which is well past both z313 and 294 feet from the window.  In fact none of the information offered in Pat's illustration at that link correctly places the conclusion of the surveys as being the same... far from it in fact.

 

 

Here is the WEST original survey for the FBI in Feb 1964.  A shot (#3 for our purposes) is identified at 4+96...  4 feet from 5+00.  IOW every single survey prior to the Eisenberg instigated one in April/May 1964 does NOT match the final round of information or the zfilm.

 

Elevation of 418.35 is farther UP Elm than 416.83.  This shows the Frazier diagram's elevations and distances to the shots - 3 of them, all hitting someone according to every report up until May 1964.  416.83 is the elevation for a spot 40 feet past z313.  

And all of this is hidden within the MATH Shaneyfelt and Frazier used to create CE884 from a previous version of CE884.

Pat Speer's conclusion does not stand up to the evidence.  HE is wrong about what the surveys showed... until James Tague comes in and "The Shot That Missed" is born.

At the very least Jeremy, you could ask a question about what you dont comprehend rather than disparage it without any real research.  The MATH THREAD shed light onto the FBI's position related to the Zfilm like no other.  That you personally don't understand it, or Michael for that matter doesn't make it wrong or impossible... that would only apply to the both of you in this topic...  What we see on film MUST be represented within the physics of the natural world.  Physics is explained thru MATH.  IF the Math doesn't work, the physical reality or authentication of what is shown is not possible.

In case you forgot, JFK was killed under a conspiracy to cover-up the facts about how and who did it.  JFK was shot from the front, possibly multiple times.  The film showed this and would support a Castro Conspiracy if need be.  Alvarado was Philips' asset in Mexico telling the bogus Oswald stories tying him to Cubans.  That all ended within days in favor of Oswald the Lon Nut shooter.  And instead of using the film, the FBI and WEST used still images and re-created the limo's movements...

When you learn that Shaneyfelt moved the limo path south and why (also in the MATH THREAD) maybe you'd give those who see things in a different light a break.  

Condemning what you don't understand before even trying seems as anti-academic as it gets...

Edited May 14, 2017 by David Josephs

[Chris Davidson]

David,

I'm going to add to what you wrote, but in a way that will tie your post in, with what I've been posting.

A little at a time.

Myers deliberate deception with the Towner camera FPS rate =1.8 seconds.

The car in the background of z190 takes 67 frames to get to where we see it as Wiegman15.  1.8sec + 67 frames(67/18.3 = 3.66sec) = 5.46sec =100 total frames

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OcFdsUUFfX1BLMk0/view?usp=sharing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

Myers has that car synced at z257.

The problem is it's actually 100 frames from z190 that the sync should occur.

iow, Wiegman15 should be synced with z290.

Or, add 33frames (1.8seconds) to z257

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OYUJaSVk5Q21NMDQ/view?usp=sharing

[Chris Davidson]

If you watch the Wiegman film, there is a point where he starts panning back towards the TSBD opening, which has always been considered the reaction to a shot. In this case, the shot at z313.

That point is Wiegman89.

Wiegman's camera was 16mm/24fps.

The difference between Wiegman15 and Wiegman89 = 74 Wiegman frames converted to zframes = 74 x (18.3/24)=.7625 = 56.4 zframes

56.4 zframes added to z290 = z346.4/z347

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OT1FfVGpJZTlyR2c/view?usp=sharing

 

[Chris Davidson]

And that puts the reaction by Wiegman to a shot on Elm St at approx z347.

Which coincidentally, is exactly where shot #3 on the SS/FBI plat of Dec5,1963 says it occurred.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005ORnhnOUhtTVhRWHM/view?usp=sharing

[Chris Davidson]

Wiegman describing the 3rd shot.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OS0QxMjN6ZTd2cnc/view?usp=sharing

[Chris Davidson]

Once again,

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005ORmVWOFpRNm9nd2c/view?usp=sharing

[Chris Davidson]

45 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

David,

I'm going to add to what you wrote, but in a way that will tie your post in, with what I've been posting.

A little at a time.

Myers deliberate deception with the Towner camera FPS rate =1.8 seconds.

The car in the background of z190 takes 67 frames to get to where we see it as Wiegman15.  1.8sec + 67 frames(67/18.3 = 3.66sec) = 5.46sec =100 total frames

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OcFdsUUFfX1BLMk0/view?usp=sharing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Governor CONNALLY. As we looked at them this morning, and as you related the numbers to me, it appeared to me that I was hit in the range between 130 or 131, I don't remember precisely, up to 134, in that bracket.
Mr. SPECTER. May I suggest to you that it was 231?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, 231 and 234, then.
Mr. SPECTER. The series under our numbering system starts with a higher number when the car comes around the turn, so when you come out of the sign, which was----
Governor CONNALLY. It was just after we came out of the sign, for whatever that sequence of numbers was, and if it was 200, I correct my testimony. It was 231 to about 234. It was within that range.

What do you think? The 100frame slip up!!!!!

 

[Chris Davidson]

10 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

And that puts the reaction by Wiegman to a shot on Elm St at approx z347.

Which coincidentally, is exactly where shot #3 on the SS/FBI plat of Dec5,1963 says it occurred.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005ORnhnOUhtTVhRWHM/view?usp=sharing

And, where Altgen's says he was.

Remove Liebeler's commentary meant to confuse and get to the question/answer.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OVnVTRW43anI0Sjg/view?usp=sharing

 

Edited April 28, 2017 by Chris Davidson

[Michael Walton]

David Josephs - you've done good work.  For example, your MC caper work passes the smell test for me in plausibility and believability. And yes, Pat Speer, a great researcher as well, may not always be correct in his assessments.

But neither are you in this case. I liken this "the plats are wrong and the film footage should match up with another piece of film footage but it doesn't" nonsense to being just that - nonsense.  Not everything about this case is a conspiracy. But when someone sees a statement here and a measurement there, and a piece of film footage that one person said was 8 feet long while another says it was 6 feet long over there, and then someone's eyes widen and  they start suspecting that all of this was all part of the grand conspiracy theory, then that person starts looking less like Pat Speer (or you with the MC caper work) and more like the Mel Gibson character with the foil covered walls.

It's just amazing to me how "researchers" simply throw all common sense and plausibility out the window when it comes to this case.

[Chris Davidson]

3 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

David Josephs - you've done good work.  For example, your MC caper work passes the smell test for me in plausibility and believability. And yes, Pat Speer, a great researcher as well, may not always be correct in his assessments.

But neither are you in this case. I liken this "the plats are wrong and the film footage should match up with another piece of film footage but it doesn't" nonsense to being just that - nonsense.  Not everything about this case is a conspiracy. But when someone sees a statement here and a measurement there, and a piece of film footage that one person said was 8 feet long while another says it was 6 feet long over there, and then someone's eyes widen and  they start suspecting that all of this was all part of the grand conspiracy theory, then that person starts looking less like Pat Speer (or you with the MC caper work) and more like the Mel Gibson character with the foil covered walls.

It's just amazing to me how "researchers" simply throw all common sense and plausibility out the window when it comes to this case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzdWPwVTWsI

 

[Michael Walton]

Yep, another one of Davidson' cryptic replies, this time nothing more than a link to a very bad band's very bad song. Meanwhile, still no debate of his own "theory" nor an honest assessment or rebuttal of Speer's theory.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Thank you for your calm reply, David. In general, Pat Speer seems to me to be one of the most reliable researchers around, but if he got this part wrong, so be it.

Nevertheless, as Michael points out, the objection remains. If all of Chris's cryptic equations are indeed supposed to provide evidence that the extant Zapruder film (and the Towner film, and all the other photographic evidence which matches what we see in the extant Zapruder film) is inauthentic because it doesn't match a particular set of figures supplied by the FBI,* it is still necessary for someone to provide strong documentary evidence that those figures were an accurate reflection of what the FBI saw on an unaltered version of the film. So far, no-one has come close to doing so, either in this thread or the crazy mathematics thread. Until someone does come up with such documentary evidence, the obvious reason for any discrepancy is that the figures were merely the result of a mistake or of conscious manipulation for whatever reason.

* Assuming that that is the point Chris is making with these unexplained equations, of course. It may be that he has actually been discussing the distribution of cod in the north Atlantic, or the economics of the Belgian steel industry.