Chris Davidson Posted May 11, 2017 Share Posted May 11, 2017 The first frame I see JFK's hair fly is z273. Nellie responds by whipping her head around to view JFK. Connally responds to being hit by pushing back towards Nellie. Jackie is a little later than Nellie in her response. Greer and Kellerman also turn their heads forward quite quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted May 11, 2017 Share Posted May 11, 2017 (edited) Mr. WITT. Let me go back a minute. As I was moving forward I apparently had this umbrella in front of me for some few steps. Whereas other people I understand saw the President shot and his movements; I did not see this because of this thing in front of me, The next thing I saw after I saw the car coming down the street, down the hill to my left, the car was just about at a position like this [indicating] at this angle here. At this time there was the car stopping, the screeching of tires, the jamming on of brakes, motorcycle patrolman right there beside one of the cars. One car ran upon the President's car and a man jumped off and jumped on the back. These were the scenes that unfolded as I reached the point to where I was seeing things. Since the public didn't see the zfilm until Groden in 1995, and Witt testified in 1979 HSCA, I find his description of the events quite compelling. After Connally gets shot in the back, Greer hits the brakes and the car appears to stop (more than likely, slowed down tremendously). Eventually it will be moving at 3.74mph. Brehm (after Connally shot) estimates in this transition period the limo moved 10-12ft. BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight. Added on edit: Hickey wasn't the only one to see the hair rise. When the President's automobile was very close to him and he could see the President's face very well, the President was seated, but was leaning forward when he stiffened perceptibly at the same instant what appeared to be a rifle shot sounded. According to BREHM, the President seemed do to stiffen and come to a pause when another shot sounded and the President appeared to be badly hit in the head. BREHM said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could notice the President's hair fly up, and then roll over to his side, as Mrs. KENNEDY was apparently pulling him in that direction. Edited May 11, 2017 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted May 11, 2017 Share Posted May 11, 2017 Wow. Coincidentally, Muchmore starts filming the assassination sequence at z272. Nix at z291. Selective splicing!!!! Think some frames were pulled? Myers sync below: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005ONUlvWUhlS1lhdjg/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OVFNOcjB0dVVibU0/view?usp=sharing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted May 11, 2017 Share Posted May 11, 2017 btw, When I referred to the Itek study and supplied the frame analysis within the report, I never divulged it was a study on the Nix film. Some of you familiar with the report would have known. So how is it that Myers multi-film sync study starts with Nix at z291, yet the Itek study went back 28 frames from z313 or z285. Sounds like 2 different films and missing frames to me. Frame counting coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted May 11, 2017 Share Posted May 11, 2017 (edited) If you refer back to this post: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/9975-splice-in-tina-towner-film/&do=findComment&comment=351165 Myers subtracted 1.8 seconds to the equation by increasing the frame rate of Towner's camera. Actually it would be 1.83 seconds as the total difference of(167and100 frames) split, when each applied to CE884 @ 30ft gives us our 2.24 and 3.74mph match. 1.83 seconds x 18.3fps = 33.48 frames = 34 whole frames The difference in where Shaw said Connally was hit and the real shot being fired is 34 frames or z236-z270. So you can surely count on at least 34 frames being removed near/after the real Connally back shot. Edited May 11, 2017 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted May 11, 2017 Share Posted May 11, 2017 (edited) btw, JFK's position using the lamp-post at z272 plots at Station# 4+35.31 or 30ft.2 short of Station# 4+65.3 = z313 Edited May 12, 2017 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Cross Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 On 4/27/2017 at 11:21 PM, 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 So, here I follow the math, and the implication. My understanding supported by David's explanation and brilliant use of visuals. Thanks gentlemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 (edited) nice job Chris(s), David J., etal.... Edited May 12, 2017 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 Yup, looks like Chris, Dave et. al. have solved the crime. All angles of the road, shooters, the car, and so on have been confirmed. All splices and removed frames have been confirmed as well. So are you guys ready with your final report? Are you guys ready to reveal it all to a mainstream media outlet like the NY Times or Washington Post? Or do you anticipate finding even more frame removals, splices, and angles first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 37 minutes ago, Michael Walton said: Yup, looks like Chris, Dave et. al. have solved the crime. All angles of the road, shooters, the car, and so on have been confirmed. All splices and removed frames have been confirmed as well. So are you guys ready with your final report? Are you guys ready to reveal it all to a mainstream media outlet like the NY Times or Washington Post? Or do you anticipate finding even more frame removals, splices, and angles first? saboteur A saboteur is a person who makes a mess of a situation on purpose. You might call your little brother a saboteurfor letting the air out of your bicycle tires, but you could be a saboteur in return by filling his shoes with cold spaghetti. Saboteur is a noun that is fairly new to the English language; it was first used in the early 1900s, and it refers to a person who deliberately destroys or obstructs something. It comes from the French word, saboter, which really and truly means to kick something with an old-fashioned wooden shoe. We can only hope that one day the word Nikeur might enter the English language to mean a person who kicks something with a sneaker. Definitions of saboteur 1 nsomeone who commits sabotage or deliberately causes wrecks Synonyms: diversionist, wrecker Types: sleeper a spy or saboteur or terrorist planted in an enemy country who lives there as a law-abiding citizen until activated by a prearranged signal Type of: destroyer, ruiner, undoer, uprooter, waster a person who destroys or ruins or lays waste to na member of a clandestine subversive organization who tries to help a potential invader Synonyms: fifth columnist Type of: traitor, treasonist someone who betrays his country by committing treason https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/saboteur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 39 minutes ago, Michael Walton said: Yup, looks like Chris, Dave et. al. have solved the crime. All angles of the road, shooters, the car, and so on have been confirmed. All splices and removed frames have been confirmed as well. So are you guys ready with your final report? Are you guys ready to reveal it all to a mainstream media outlet like the NY Times or Washington Post? Or do you anticipate finding even more frame removals, splices, and angles first? Mocking sarcasm. Nothing critical (as opposed to normative) to say. No observations. No questions. Nothing collaborative. Nothing informative. No sense of collegiality. Michael, you just rant and rave about your disapproval of the efforts of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 CLARK -- There's no such thing as a "saboteur" on a forum, only people who oppose or agree theories and ideas here. You seem to have fallen for this theory - that all of the films, every single one of them, have somehow, some way, been tampered with by this huge coordinated effort by the sinister conspirators. You also seem to have fallen for the theory here that based on measurements of the road, angles and so on, that some kind of sinister whatever-it-is has covered something-or-other up. As for sarcasm, I can't help myself. The sheer funniness of how people's minds work here have earned my sarcasm. And the really sad thing is - how can a researcher who I think did good research work elsewhere (no names here) also be involved in this funniness? It's amazing to me how the mind works, but on the other hand, this same researcher told me privately, "I believe they did [it]...because they can." That single line has helped me enormously in understanding how people on this forum think, or as yet another researcher here said, they "...lap up" all manner of conspiracy theories without any rational thought involved. All common sense, all arched eyebrows and "hmmm..." thinking is completely thrown out the window here. Look at the title of this thread - Splice in Towner Film. That's the beginning of this thread. I've already pointed out way back in the beginning - OK, so as the film is showing the car go by, there's a multi-frame jump in it. OK fine. Big deal. This was shot way up at the intersection. If you choose to believe that the conspirators were trying to frame Oswald for the murder, and if you choose to believe that the shooting had to take place to make it look as if the shots came from the fake 6th floor sniper's nest, why on Earth would they have their shooters start shooting that early? It would have completely destroyed the illusion of the 6th floor sniper's nest. It would have completely destroyed the plan of allowing frontal shooters hidden down in the knoll area the opportuntity to shoot from their positions. I hope you can figure that out but if you can't, I'll take this opportunity to tell you. If there were frontal shooters down there, there's no way they could have hit Kennedy when the car is at the intersection of Houston and Elm as depicted in the Towner film. Do you understand now? And yet, once again, some "lapping it up..." "researcher" here says, "Oh, look. Look how the film breaks as the car is going by. OMG - that's where the shooting starts but the evil, sinister plotters got a hold of the film - and all of the others - and just started synching it all up and cut 5 frames from the Towner film because...well...hmm..oh, because a shiny reflection is off the car which is the first shot and..." Do you not see the craziness of this? Think about it. Think about a bevy of film cutters going through all photos and films, cutting out 5 frames in Towner, splices in Zapruder, switched frames in Nix...and on and on. And what is the end result? That's the key here. Davidson's theory is just all angles, math, numbers, and switched frames and now he's saying that a shot whizzed by Kennedy's hair, fluffing it as goes on to hit JBC. But what is all of this jumble of stuff add up to? It adds up to my own version of math - zero. Null. And to take this a step further, how can anyone put any faith in any of YOUR posts on here when you can't even identify Jack Ruby when five different photos are lined up in a row? Your reply to that is you're terrible with photo identification. Fine. Then don't bother "sabotaging" a thread - as silly as that thread was - by saying it wasn't Ruby in the photos but, "Oh, well...I'm terrible with photo ID-ing." Meanwhile, the looniness just keeps going on and on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Michael Walton said: CLARK -- There's no .l..lll .......just keeps going on and on here. Walton, you just wasted 1000 words on blather, ranting and raving. I'd didn't read 5'words of it. You just continue to choke this thread. Edited May 13, 2017 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 That's your problem - not mine. You just go right on believing then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted May 13, 2017 Share Posted May 13, 2017 (edited) 17 hours ago, Michael Clark said: saboteur A saboteur is a person who makes a mess of a situation on purpose. You might call your little brother a saboteurfor letting the air out of your bicycle tires, but you could be a saboteur in return by filling his shoes with cold spaghetti. Saboteur is a noun that is fairly new to the English language; it was first used in the early 1900s, and it refers to a person who deliberately destroys or obstructs something. It comes from the French word, saboter, which really and truly means to kick something with an old-fashioned wooden shoe. We can only hope that one day the word Nikeur might enter the English language to mean a person who kicks something with a sneaker. Definitions of saboteur 1 nsomeone who commits sabotage or deliberately causes wrecks Synonyms: diversionist, wrecker Types: sleeper a spy or saboteur or terrorist planted in an enemy country who lives there as a law-abiding citizen until activated by a prearranged signal Type of: destroyer, ruiner, undoer, uprooter, waster a person who destroys or ruins or lays waste to na member of a clandestine subversive organization who tries to help a potential invader Synonyms: fifth columnist Type of: traitor, treasonist someone who betrays his country by committing treason https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/saboteur Dear Michael, Are you, in a weasly kind-of-way, accusing Walton of being a saboteur? Sure seems that way. I might be mistaken, but I believe that's against Forum rules. Are you trying to goad Walton into saying something rude so that he will get himself banned from "your" Forum? If so, wouldn't that make you a ... PRO.VO.CA.TEUR ? Just sayin' -- Tommy Edited May 13, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now