Splice in Tina Towner Film

[Chris Davidson]

The first would be: Distance between JFK's physical position in the limo and the limo front bumper. 

[Chris Davidson]

The second would be:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OU194TklDS09LZUE/view?usp=sharing

Ignorance is no excuse when you are being spoon fed the information.

[Chris Davidson]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OcHhzZmdaWXJHOWs/view?usp=sharing

The left side is calculated without the 3.27ft vertical height assigned to JFK's head at z313.

The right side is the same with 3.27ft used.

I used the magic angle and shot#2 elev. for the other entries.

The point being a 3.27ft vertical elev. change will result in a different distance, in this assassination case, 3.13degrees will dictate a base change of 10.234ft

This doesn't mean the location on the street 3.27ft straight up vertical, changed its location 10.234ft horizontally.

The ability to understand the previous sentence is paramount to moving forward or already understanding what the sneaky fellows were doing.

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

Using the previous variables given, the equation:

10.234/3.27 = 3.13 would seem most appropriate.

 

[Thomas Graves]

On 5/16/2017 at 11:28 AM, Chris Davidson said:

Using the previous variables given, the equation:

10.234/3.27 = 3.13 would seem most appropriate.

 

Chris,

Don't mean to hurt your feelings, but ...

... who cares?

I hope you don't mind my asking "Where are you 'going' with this?"

You don't happen to "be into" numbers, by any chance, do you?

Very few of us are.

--  Toomby

PS How many films and photos do you figure were altered by the CIA?

 

Edited May 18, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Chris Davidson]

Thomas,

It's a wonderful archive.

If you don't care, why follow up with 3 questions?

Feel free to join Walton and whoever else is not interested by not responding. I sure would appreciate it. 

You didn't mind using my numbers when trying to establish a timeline for Baker/Couch/Darnell etc.

I could care less about your interest in math/numbers, that's your shortcoming not mine. imo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Thomas Graves]

On 5/16/2017 at 1:01 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Thomas,

It's a wonderful archive.

If you don't care, why follow up with 3 questions?

Feel free to join Walton and whoever else is not interested by not responding. I sure would appreciate it. 

You didn't mind using my numbers when trying to establish a timeline for Baker/Couch/Darnell etc.

I could care less about your interest in math/numbers, that's your shortcoming not mine. imo

 

Dear Chris,

"A wonderful archive"?  Kinda like the Library of Alexandria?  Full of Pythagorean-like calculations? Mysteries to be slowly revealed to the initiates?  Or more like Kepler and that guy with the golden nose in Prague back-in-the-day?  

Did I say I'm not interested in numbers, or did you infer that?

(You're right.  I did enjoy using your incredible (and usually-accurate) numbers to approximate the time it took Baker from the fatal head shot or something like that to get to within six feet or so of the curb, you know, as being around 22.3 seconds, IIRC. Or was it 23.2?  Dang.)

Honest question:  How many films do you figure, so far, were altered by the CIA?  

All of them?  Or just a couple?  One?  None?

Or do I need to join up, take the holy vow, and  ..... wait for the revelations to come ...... to find out?

Why can't you cut to the chase?

Oh, I see.  It's a work-in-progress.

 

Carry on,

--  Toombas   (Hey, that might be an ancient Greek name!)

 

 

 

Edited May 18, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Michael Walton]

Feel free to join Walton and whoever else is not interested by not responding. I sure would appreciate it. 

If we weren't interested we wouldn't be here, Chris.  But we are. Meanwhile, Pat Speer and Jeremy clearly made a worthwhile rebuttal to all of this. Why don't you take a look at it and debate it?

[Thomas Graves]

15 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Feel free to join Walton and whoever else is not interested by not responding. I sure would appreciate it. 

If we weren't interested we wouldn't be here, Chris.  But we are. Meanwhile, Pat Speer and Jeremy clearly made a worthwhile rebuttal to all of this. Why don't you take a look at it and debate it?

Michael,

It would appear that Chris is more comfortable with numbers than he is with words.  

IMHO, and no malice intended.

--  Tommy

 

[Chris Davidson]

Start a new topic and present the rebuttal.

 

[David Josephs]

On 5/15/2017 at 1:39 PM, Michael Walton said:

See this is exactly what I  mean. No explanation. No answers. No defense of the theory or discussion of others rebuttals. No rebuttals to Jeremy and Speers. Now Josephs is taking the same tact and telling me to scoot off.

David you  can think whatever you  want about my knowledge of this case. I  think I  have a decent knowledge  of  the  case and I  think where we and others and me diverge sharply  is I  dont buy into everything  under the sun as being a conspiracy. I  think that's  where a lot of folks here get themselves into trouble.

You yourself told me "See Michael I  think they did because  they can."

I mean really...? Why would you  think that? They already had their patsy 6 foot in the grave. All they had to do was massage the story here and there to make it all official in the WR.

Why would  you  ever think they'd  go through  all of this extra work, film manipulation  and so on....because they "could" when they didn't  need to?

It doesn't  make sense.

Your inability to fathom the reasons behind events in this assassination does not negate any of this work... 

What is annoying here MW is we have explained and reexplained and illustrated and explained again...  It took me - a finance and math major - quite some time to understand what Chris is offering.  But once I did the Zfilm charade begins to clear.  It has always been my assumption that parts if not all of the film was shot at 48fps, and even Horne touches on that possibility.  

Use it or not.  Yet coming here to post incredulity while also slamming those who do understand is extremely counter-productive.

I can try to simplify it yet again but it appears you want to stick to you WHY OH WHY argument...  I've stopped asking why because there is no way to know WHY... what we do have are the results, the altered data, the nefarious entry of evidence and an overt process by the FBI to make the analysis of the shooting, and therefore what is seen on the ZFilm, impossible.

Let's start with something easy and direct Mike.   Explain what you understand POSITION A was for and why it makes its way into the zfilm analysis.

POS A is the first position prior to z133 where the limo is placed and from which distances were derived...

so in your vernacular...  Why?  After we establish that we can move on.  

 

Edited April 12, 2018 by David Josephs

[Michael Walton]

 

CHRIS:  

Start a new topic and present the rebuttal.

Uh, Chris, this is NOT the hilarious Swan Song - Math Rules (aka The 67% Solution) thread.  It's the Tina Towner splice thread.  The original debate involved why there's a splice in that film - as if a splice equals the bad guys cutting out four masked gun men who surrounded the car to fire upon it - all within 4 frames of film.

So if you want to continue debating your numbers and measurements, shouldn't you really be over there and not here?

***

DAVID:

Your inability to fathom the reasons behind events in this assassination does not negate any of this work. It took me - a finance and math major - quite some time to understand what Chris is offering...

That's good to hear. My degree is in drawing pictures and pasting them together so that does explain why you can make sense of it all better than me.

It has always been my assumption that parts if not all of the film was shot at 48 fps, and even Horne touches on that possibility.

That's the very sticky word in this whole case - assuming things. Regarding the film, there's no REASON to assume anything about it. Yes, the camera has the control to bump up the film to 48 FPS. But I don't think you, Chris, or anyone else can truly understand that an original film shot at 48 FPS and then frames removed from it will really change anything that can be easily masked over.

Think about it.  If one second of film was shot at 48 FPS and then someone removed 67% of those frames, that comes to about 32 frames removed leaving 16 frames.  Watch the film anyone can see online, or even better download every single frame, put them on your computer and toggle back and forth and watch it.

All movement is smooth.  There are no jumps, skips, and other odd behavior. So we're expected to believe, working backwards, that if say, between frames 250 and 251 that 4 additional frames used to be there, and now they're not, what in those 4 frames were so terrible that they needed to be removed?  And how do YOU or Chris know which frames were removed? For example, how do you know whether 4 frames were removed there and not, say, between 199 and 200?

It boggles my mind how you, Chris, and anyone else can think that this could be done.

And let's argument the merits of it.  Yes I'm going to use your favorite word here - why?  Why - or better what - was removed from those 32 frames? How can anyone expect that in a sequence of pictures tightly threaded together one after another that something sinister could be removed in time to disguise it?

You can't. Chris can't.  And my advice, too, is read what Jeff Carter says about it.  Read the Zavada report. You, Chris, and others are really grasping for something that isn't there.

Use it or not.  Yet coming here to post incredulity while also slamming those who do understand is extremely counter-productive.

You seem to think that because I and others are "slamming" you when we don't agree. There's no slamming here, but I'm sorry, I'm not going to just let people think they're all right and everyone else is wrong with something as silly and ridiculous as this is. The same is true for the silly Harvey and Lee caper, Ruby didn't shoot Oswald, and so on.

But again, I've come to understand this about you.  You wrote a great report on the MC caper.  To me, that is a definitely plausible thing because there's an outcome to it.  The outcome being it's all part and parcel with making the crazy kid patsy look guilty.

But then I read you elsewhere and I ask - what happened here?  The MC caper was not enough? Now you're suspicious about the microphone in the Ruby shot Oswald photo? You seem to back up the silly Harvey and Lee caper? And you think frames were removed in the Z film?  It's just puzzling how someone can write an article on MC - with a very plausible and solid outcome - and then throw all reason out the window and start believing anything.  And why? Because that's what you assume? Or because they could?

[Mark Knight]

The original survey work done by Robert West and company at the behest of the Secret Service was based upon the Z-film in their possession.  The positions surveyed were specified by the Secret Service.  THEN the FBI got involved, and they wanted DIFFERENT points surveyed...in which the Z-313 shot was moved to an earlier point, but the SS specified 3rd shot further down Elm was retained.  THEN the obfuscation by the Warren Commission began, and ONLY THEN did the 3rd shot, the one BEYOND Z-313, simply vanished.  Here are my comments from another thread referring to the late Tom Purvis' work in dealing with the West surveys and the WC alteration of the data:

"... you have to understand that Tom didn't "invent" his theory of three shots, three hits. The Secret Service started with that [concept], and had the points where the bullets hit the President mapped out on a survey of Dealy Plaza. Tom merely exposed the information that the SS already had, and then went about showing how the medical evidence supports the SS three-shot, three-hit scenario. Tom has also pointed out how the FBI began altering the survey data to support first their own implausible theory, and then finally the pure cock-and-bull of the WC's SBT.

In both the SS survey and the "altered" FBI survey, the point of the third shot/third hit didn't go away...UNTIL the WC "made" it disappear under the sleight-of-hand of having the original survey sealed, attesting that a "tracing" of the survey was good enough for their purposes, and then using a "cardboard representation" of the "tracing" of the "sealed survey" as evidence...as opposed to UNsealing the survey and using the actual evidence they had in hand!

IMHO, Arlen Spector should've been hung for treason, rather than elected to the U. S. Senate!"

[Michael Walton]

In both the SS survey and the "altered" FBI survey, the point of the third shot/third hit didn't go away...UNTIL the WC "made" it disappear under the sleight-of-hand of having the original survey sealed, attesting that a "tracing" of the survey was good enough for their purposes, and then using a "cardboard representation" of the "tracing" of the "sealed survey" as evidence...as opposed to UNsealing the survey and using the actual evidence they had in hand!

Mark, this is a good analogy. As I've mentioned elsewhere, it was much easier to massage the story like this compared to assuming that the film was shot in 48 FPS, 67% of the frames removed, and so on like Chris and Dave and others believe.

So I agree and I'm sure others do as well that in order to tie up all of the shot scenarios, wounds, and what was seen in the Zapruder film, measurements had to be massaged in order for the SBT to be plausible, at least in the lawyers' minds. That was far easier to do than collect all of the films, remove frames, leave splices in other films, and so on.

Now if only I can convince Chris, Dave, and others to just let this silly measurements and movie alteration fantasy die a quiet death, we can all go home happy.

[David Josephs]

On 5/17/2017 at 3:08 PM, Michael Walton said:

It boggles my mind how you, Chris, and anyone else can think that this could be done.

Then please, remain boggled.

I asked a simple question. A place from which we can create vocabulary with which to converse.

What is Position A Michael?  and why does the FBI add it to the ZFilm re-enactments.

 Look carefully at the middle two images...  the limo is not ever seen in this position on the Zfilm yet Truly claims this is exactly where the limo went (top image)

Now the bottom image...  the B&W image of the stand-in limo is placed at Pos A.  The motorcycle emerges from that corner prior to z133 so if the limo was also there, it too would have been seen on the Zfilm in that exact position....

yet, Any ideas how the limo gets from Pos A to z133?  

Spend some time with Pos A and Shaneyfelt's testimony and MAYBE you'll start to see what was done to cover for the fact the Zfilm was completely altered.  or not.

 

 

On 5/17/2017 at 3:08 PM, Michael Walton said:

But then I read you elsewhere and I ask - what happened here?  The MC caper was not enough? Now you're suspicious about the microphone in the Ruby shot Oswald photo? You seem to back up the silly Harvey and Lee caper? And you think frames were removed in the Z film?  It's just puzzling how someone can write an article on MC - with a very plausible and solid outcome - and then throw all reason out the window and start believing anything.  And why? Because that's what you assume? Or because they could?

While I appreciate you taking the time and commenting on some of my work, all you ever offer is the same incredulity without anything to refute what's been offered.

I'm more than willing to discuss any aspect of H&L you'd like... as long as you make your points with supporting documentation.  

PROVE something is not right Michael... prove something I've written or offered is incorrect and at least we have a starting place.

You know so little about H&L yet can come to conclusions.   Like the Math and your saying you're an artist.  Not being an artist myself, what good is telling you you're wrong about something in the art world simply because I can't understand WHY it was done?  Just like you not understanding the cause and effect of the Zfilm alteration and the the MATH related to it.

Frames were removed from the Zfilm...  no one disputes this Mike.  207-212... the exact location where all the surveys found the first shot to have hit someone, were removed - 

The reason the film was altered was because it showed results from well more than 3 shots being fired, at least 2 of which coming from the front.

Proof the film is original is entirely based on the COPIES.  There remains nothing on that 6+ feet of film that PROVES it was ever the in-camera original...
....while event after event paints a pretty picture of what was done to create incriminating evidence against Oswald in every aspect of the case.  Nothing could overtly show that shots were fired from anywhere but the 6th floor SE window.

All I can suggest is to stop asking WHY something was done and spend a little time first seeing WHAT was done and then figure out HOW...  these are facts...

WHY? is simply conjecture and in most cases a complete waste of time

Edited July 18, 2017 by David Josephs