Jump to content
The Education Forum

Splice in Tina Towner Film


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

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?

 

You keep referring back to this idea that we have to provide an explanation for why the frames were removed. 

There could be many reasons, some most obvious, but that is not my responsibility.

So, for the last time, if you fail to understand what I will describe once more, along with the slowed down gifs, I can't help you.

If you want to talk about frame removal, there are other topics you can post on.

The three gifs provided are:

1. Extant original z184-z195

2. Same frame span z184-z195 using Final Cut Pro to create a 3 to1 ratio of progressive frames between z184-z195. In other words, in all 32 frames now, the limo moves forward.

3. Same as #2, except I have now removed 2/3 of the frames in a 1-4-7-10 removal sequence.

#2 and #3 are slowed down so everyone can now count the frames and watch the limo move forward in every frame.

This is no different than filming at 48FPS and removing 2/3 of the frames.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OeHVUM2taQVlIUk0/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OWjdOUDZEdlhjbG8/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005Oc0d6NmR4YTZ6bXc/view?usp=sharing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 283
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Mark McNight clearly explained everything, a plausible, viable reason for this mess.  David - lining up photos and making elaborate photo compositions is NOT going to help convince me nor others but if it does for you, fine.  Position A is meaningless to me. How many ways do I have to explain that to you? You're trying to convince me of something that's unprovable.

The same with Chris - it's all hokum.

And by the way, Mark, Pat Speer and Jeremy ALL have said the same thing with regards to the inner workings on how this whole thing got started. I'm merely the supporter and vocal cheerleader of it. We all know the SBT is bullxxxx but they were desperate to make it work however they could. And as Mark, Speer and Jeremy explained, that's HOW they got it to work.

That's all.  The films were not - I repeat NOT - manipulated, altered, extra frames removed, etc.  They had to take the evidence that was round and fit into a square result, which is what McNight meant by the lawyer being treasonous.  They basically passed a lie on to the public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OOVA1LTBlVE9CZ00/view?usp=sharing

I would say 24.963 is approx 25degrees.

24.963-3.13 = 21.83deg = 21deg 50min = data entry for z207.

If one plots the Z LOS through Robert West's path, one will see that his z207 is actually the WC z207 but on a separate path.

Robert West's base measurement of 162.34ft is reflective of his path.

And, since West had determined there was a shot in this approx location ( film provided via Life Mag Nov 1963), I can see why the WC had to account for frame removals obviously by changing the frame designations for z208+z210.

Which resulted in the silly ballistics results and limo speed for this part of the film, which I have already included in a different topic.

Please remember too, that the designation for shot#1 by the FBI was 10.2ft further west down Elm.St(Station# 3+81.3-3+71.1) 10.234 to be exact (check equation above) than z207.

The change from z208-z210 also created a situation in which the limo slowed to 9.5mph from immediately before and after this span of 12 to 12.3 mph.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 3:03 AM, Michael Walton said:

Position A is meaningless to me

Of course it is Mike....  That's the point....  you don't seem to care about the analytical process.  and since you can't possible conceive how this would be beneficial - like so many, you need to criticize what you clearly still don't understand...  burying your head in the sand does not make something unproven...  the math actually clearly shows what the FBI did to add even more confusion to the situation.

You ain't never gonna learn what you don't wanna know my friend.....  what amazes me is you have the 'nads to come on these threads and whine like a child about WHY we do this and HOW can it be meaningful...  For G~d sake Mike... move on already.  You admit it yourself - this is way over your head Mike...  don't hurt yourself trying to avoid understanding something new buddy...  SOS seems to be working fine for ya...

That you can offer ironclad conclusions like: "The films were not - I repeat NOT - manipulated, altered, extra frames removed, etc" only proves how little you care to look deeper than your own opinion.   

If the film was not altered... why is a 50+ foot film, or ever the 25'-30' of film from side B not only a little over 6 feet, but has no unique identification while the "entire film" is spliced together with multiple physical and photographic splices. The fact that you are so unaware of the details related to the Zfilm is disheartening...  just means you offer conclusive opinions based on nothing but your own conclusions - regardless of how they conflict with the official record.

Stay in that warm, safe comfort zone Mike...  understanding requires more than acceptance...  that you accept the governments story hook line and sinker is sad.
Virtually every item in this case is tainted, is inauthentic evidence.  Yet you can proudly state a conclusion for which there is no supporting evidence...

And do so with such arrogance.  I've reread Mark's post and yes it does offer a small explanation of one aspect of the 4 different times the FBI/SS/WEST and friends did surveys and re-enactments.  There is corroborating evidence of a shot further down Elm.  The is corroborating evidence the limo slowed to a crawl and there were shots AFTER Hill gets to the trunk.  

There is corroborating evidence that shots hit the street, the sidewalk, that there was a pool of blood up on the GK sitting area behind the wall.  THREE SHOTS was the foregone conclusion... if we find there being more RESULTS in DP than would occur with only 3 shots, this data and the FBI's hiding of it had a purpose and a trail of evidence.  Without the WEST SURVEY DATA we'd know none of this.  

It is this data and the eye witnesses who supersede a corrupt investigation with a predetermined conclusion and prove the Film to have been at least altered at a number of key locations.  z132-z133 is a splice, not a stop and start.

 

156-157-158

It appears the tear in the film was across z156 so 157 bottom is spliced to 156 top

yet when you look closely, between z157 and z158 JFK spins his head like Greer at 302/303 and again at 314/315

JFK goes from looking at 4:00 to 9:00 in less than 1/18th of a second...  not possible...  equals missing frames

 

Let's talk 207 for a second...  As discussed (and obviously ignored), Shaneyfelt states that between 207 and 210 the 10" vertical distance is accounted for....

Yet also as discussed, a 10" drop equals 15.25 vertical feet of movement.  The following illustration of what Shaneyfelt meant shows it to be impossibly wrong.  In essence, with this film record of the assassination needing no changes, the FBI disregarded this evidence and instead created their own using a limo stand-in, a 10" vertical distance difference at both the street level and the window (box/muzzle height versus frame height).

Why would the FBI repeatedly look to anything else but this "original bit of BEST evidence" to perform their work?

 

I'll save you the time - 'cause the film and every other item of DP evidence is completely manufactured to incriminate Oswald.

After one realizes this, one next considers HOW it was done...  the following frame z323 includes a black square hovering over the back of JFK's head.  it is obviously not something that occurred naturally since none of the other blacks in the frame crush out like that...

May be falling on your deaf ears but there are other who follow with interest and curiosity...

 

So Mike - this is the last you'll hear from me in addressing your posts on this subject..  

Take care
DJ

 

 

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two things:

First, check my name.  It is not now, nor ever has been, McKnight.

Second, Mr. Walton assumes I disagree with Chris Davidson.  I DO NOT.  I consider Mr. Davidson's work to be the logical extension of Tom Purvis' research.

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled program, already in progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

Two things:

First, check my name.  It is not now, nor ever has been, McKnight.

Second, Mr. Walton assumes I disagree with Chris Davidson.  I DO NOT.  I consider Mr. Davidson's work to be the logical extension of Tom Purvis' research.

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled program, already in progress.

:clapping

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Yet also as discussed, a 10" drop equals 15.25 vertical feet of movement.  The following illustration of what Shaneyfelt meant shows it to be impossibly wrong.  In essence, with this film record of the assassination needing no changes, the FBI disregarded this evidence and instead created their own using a limo stand-in, a 10" vertical distance difference at both the street level and the window (box/muzzle height versus frame height).

 

 

 

 

 

And,

When tied directly back to Dale Myers cheating us out of 24.6ft via the Towner frame rate manipulation of (1.8sec x 9.3mph = 33frames@18.3fps) more connections arise, along with David's statement above and the adjustment of 24.5ft via SS/FBI survey from extant z313 back east up ElmSt..    

The adjustments made of 15.25ft and 10.243ft including the (.9ft B.S distance traveled z161-z166) gives an equation of 15.25+10.243 -.9 = 24.593ft

Reverse that .9ft to distance traveled using(z161-z166) extant film = 5.4ft (10.8ft@10frames previously plotted) and now it reads 15.25+10.243= 25.493 + 5.4 = 30.89ft

You might also have noticed that the speed of the limo(circa 207) according to CE884 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/9975-splice-in-tina-towner-film/&do=findComment&comment=353500 with the 208-210 frame fiasco = 9.5 mph or quite close to the speed at which a true Towner camera frame rate would support Myers multi film-sync document at that point. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this all works the way it should, that 30.89ft distance should give us the SS/FBI plat shot#3 location measured from CE884 extant z313 westward or:

Station# 4+65.3 + 30.89ft = Station# 4+96.19

I wish there was some documentation besides the plat, listing the location of the 3rd shot.

4ft from Station# 5+00 = Station# 4+96

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OMmExTS1LUWJmLUk/view?usp=sharing

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really Chris?  The Secret Service in CE875 tells us that the 3rd shot was over 30 feet further down Elm?

CE585 does the same thing...

 

 

Amazing...

hey Chris...  any other corroboration like say Altgens, Hudson, Leo Gauthier and WCD298...  

Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car.

 

 

 

another amazing fact is that LEO GAUTHIER, the FBI AGENT who oversaw the creation of this WCD298 model was one of the men with Eisenberg who in May 1964 completely negated the work from Dec 2,3,4 and up to delivery of this model in mid-January 1964 by reconstructing the evidence.   The FBI asked WEST to remove the data related to the 3rd shot from his work so that there'd be 2 and only 2 shots hitting the limo...  any ideas on how Eisenberg could draw this months prior to the reenactment and get it so correct?   {snicker snicker}

 

 

Mr. SPECTER. Did you participate in the onsite tests made in Dallas? 
Mr. GAUTHIER. I did. 
Mr. SPECTER. Was a survey made of the scene used to record some of the results of that onsite testing? 
Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes. 
Mr. SPECTER. And by whom was the survey made? 
Mr. GAUTHIER. The survey was made on May 24, 1964, by Robert H. West

Except what SPECTER is questioning GAUTHIER about is the work done in early DECEMBER.
The Model was erected for the Warren Commissioners on January 20

Mr. GAUTHIER. Our data to build this were compiled on December 2, 3, and 4. It took about 5 weeks to prepare this exhibit in Washington. 

Mr. SPECTER. And where have these models been maintained since the time they were prepared by the FBI? 
Mr. GAUTHIER The models were delivered to the Commission's building and installed in the exhibits room on the first floor, on January 20, 1964. 

Makes one wonder how a model and related data is delivered JANUARY 20 yet the survey data related to this endeavor is not compiled for another 5 months. 
The survey by WEST was made on Dec 2,3,4

 

 

 

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And,

Approx one year ago, starting at the other end, the span worked out to 30.856ft.

or a difference from one end to the other of .034ft = .4inches

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/22692-swan-song-math-rules/&do=findComment&comment=327975

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Really Chris?  The Secret Service in CE875 tells us that the 3rd shot was over 30 feet further down Elm?

CE585 does the same thing...

591de7ce1b537_CE585showsshots2and3withz313inbetween.thumb.jpg.5627830b39645c45c27cae59c1c5d219.jpg

 

Amazing...

hey Chris...  any other corroboration like say Altgens, Hudson, Leo Gauthier and WCD298...  

Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car.

591deb45052a5_Altgens15feet.jpg.e985095ef8656838eb224beae9bc96a0.jpg

591de86065f5d_wcd298imagewithlinesadded.jpg.47acecfc439669802273852cebebcff0.jpg

 

another amazing fact is that LEO GAUTHIER, the FBI AGENT who oversaw the creation of this WCD298 model was one of the men with Eisenberg who in May 1964 completely negated the work from Dec 2,3,4 and up to delivery of this model in mid-January 1964 by reconstructing the evidence.   The FBI asked WEST to remove the data related to the 3rd shot from his work so that there'd be 2 and only 2 shots hitting the limo...  any ideas on how Eisenberg could draw this months prior to the reenactment and get it so correct?   {snicker snicker}

591de967291e0_Eisenbergprovidesshotelevationsfor2shots-wrongplaces.jpg.be8533c23778778b3ebad8fb77951516.jpg

 

Mr. SPECTER. Did you participate in the onsite tests made in Dallas? 
Mr. GAUTHIER. I did. 
Mr. SPECTER. Was a survey made of the scene used to record some of the results of that onsite testing? 
Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes. 
Mr. SPECTER. And by whom was the survey made? 
Mr. GAUTHIER. The survey was made on May 24, 1964, by Robert H. West

Except what SPECTER is questioning GAUTHIER about is the work done in early DECEMBER.
The Model was erected for the Warren Commissioners on January 20

Mr. GAUTHIER. Our data to build this were compiled on December 2, 3, and 4. It took about 5 weeks to prepare this exhibit in Washington. 

Mr. SPECTER. And where have these models been maintained since the time they were prepared by the FBI? 
Mr. GAUTHIER The models were delivered to the Commission's building and installed in the exhibits room on the first floor, on January 20, 1964. 

Makes one wonder how a model and related data is delivered JANUARY 20 yet the survey data related to this endeavor is not compiled for another 5 months. 
The survey by WEST was made on Dec 2,3,4

591ded57dee2c_Dec2-3-4surveyGAUTHIERclaimswasnotdoneuntilMay.jpg.b1fe42ec0603fe64fcb2e82859cee460.jpg

591de86065f5d_wcd298imagewithlinesadded.jpg.47acecfc439669802273852cebebcff0.jpg

 

David,

Stop pouring it on. 

Then again, more "Icing on the cake" isn't a bad thing.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There could be many reasons, some most obvious, but that is not my responsibility.

This is so, so funny, Chris.  And very lazy of you too.  Because you're taking a piece of evidence from the case and twisting and contorting it to fit YOUR theory, and yet you refuse to show in that piece of evidence itself where the physical properties were changed? Really funny.

I've now counted a half dozen "I thinks" or "maybes" or "IMOs" in Joseph's write-ups, pictures and drawings. I thought math majors use math as their way of concluding with 100% certainty of theories. For example, Einstein used math to confirm his theory of relativity?

The SBT was the biggest thing hanging over the government when they were putting together their report. Anyone with a brain knows that. They knew someone on the 6th floor could not have performed the shooting as seen in the Zapruder film. They couldn't just wave a wand over all of the films - all of them - and make everything match up to fit the SBT. It was impossible to do this. It would have required an enormous amount of time and effort to even begin trying to do the physical act of doing this with no guaranteed outcome.

I just tried taking two frames of the film, opening them in Photoshop, and tried to "splice" the halfs of them together like Joseph's ridiculous claim above when he mentions "perhaps" (very weak for a math major) that 156 and 157 were spliced together.  It's impossible to do and I'm using new tech like PSD.  They didn't even have that back in 1963.

David Josephs likes to brag about this motto he came up with on this case - The Evidence IS the Conspiracy." I actually agree with that statement, even the Zapruder film.  That film PROVES - unaltered - that the government had its work cut out for it when they knew that it was impossible to pull off the shot sequence that they were trying to say took place. The film proved conspiracy.

But in THIS case, Josephs and Davidson do not think so. They think the film was also doctored. Neither of them have ever worked in the film and video business.  I have, for 30 years now.  One of the first mediums I've ever worked with is the very same kind of 8mm film that the Z film was shot on.  This was the early 80's.  I edited it with this little cut and tape contraption.

Let me tell you - if Josephs and Davidson think that the government could have pulled off what they're claiming, then they don't know or understand what's involved. It's as simple as that.

This is my last post on this.  You just cannot talk reason with these people and people like them.  All logic is thrown out the window with them. They remind me of my own brother-in-law. He used to sit around spewing nonsense while hacking on his Salems. One time, we went out in my car and I turned on the air conditioner. I flipped the RECIRC button and he said, "Oh, you shouldn't do that! It guzzles up a lot more gas when you throw that RECIRC switch." As if the switch turns on this magical extra motor to make it colder. I tried to explain that it doesn't, that it just recirculates the air, making it colder. I knew this because I researched it previously and was curious what exactly the switch did. He replied, "Naw! It guzzles up more gas." Then he took a hack on his Salem and just looked out the window.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

There could be many reasons, some most obvious, but that is not my responsibility.

This is so, so funny, Chris.  And very lazy of you too.  Because you're taking a piece of evidence from the case and twisting and contorting it to fit YOUR theory, and yet you refuse to show in that piece of evidence itself where the physical properties were changed? Really funny.

I've now counted a half dozen "I thinks" or "maybes" or "IMOs" in Joseph's write-ups, pictures and drawings. I thought math majors use math as their way of concluding with 100% certainty of theories. For example, Einstein used math to confirm his theory of relativity?

The SBT was the biggest thing hanging over the government when they were putting together their report. Anyone with a brain knows that. They knew someone on the 6th floor could not have performed the shooting as seen in the Zapruder film. They couldn't just wave a wand over all of the films - all of them - and make everything match up to fit the SBT. It was impossible to do this. It would have required an enormous amount of time and effort to even begin trying to do the physical act of doing this with no guaranteed outcome.

I just tried taking two frames of the film, opening them in Photoshop, and tried to "splice" the halfs of them together like Joseph's ridiculous claim above when he mentions "perhaps" (very weak for a math major) that 156 and 157 were spliced together.  It's impossible to do and I'm using new tech like PSD.  They didn't even have that back in 1963.

David Josephs likes to brag about this motto he came up with on this case - The Evidence IS the Conspiracy." I actually agree with that statement, even the Zapruder film.  That film PROVES - unaltered - that the government had its work cut out for it when they knew that it was impossible to pull off the shot sequence that they were trying to say took place. The film proved conspiracy.

But in THIS case, Josephs and Davidson do not think so. They think the film was also doctored. Neither of them have ever worked in the film and video business.  I have, for 30 years now.  One of the first mediums I've ever worked with is the very same kind of 8mm film that the Z film was shot on.  This was the early 80's.  I edited it with this little cut and tape contraption.

Let me tell you - if Josephs and Davidson think that the government could have pulled off what they're claiming, then they don't know or understand what's involved. It's as simple as that.

This is my last post on this.  You just cannot talk reason with these people and people like them.  All logic is thrown out the window with them. They remind me of my own brother-in-law. He used to sit around spewing nonsense while hacking on his Salems. One time, we went out in my car and I turned on the air conditioner. I flipped the RECIRC button and he said, "Oh, you shouldn't do that! It guzzles up a lot more gas when you throw that RECIRC switch." As if the switch turns on this magical extra motor to make it colder. I tried to explain that it doesn't, that it just recirculates the air, making it colder. I knew this because I researched it previously and was curious what exactly the switch did. He replied, "Naw! It guzzles up more gas." Then he took a hack on his Salem and just looked out the window.

Good post, Michael.

-- Tommy :sun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thomas Graves said:

Good post, Michael.

-- Tommy :sun

Tommy,

I am not in agreement. I think Michael could have more fruitfully spent that time going over his recommended reading list and bringing something interesting to the fore. As it is, and as is your want to-do, he walks around the playground, kicks over, smashes, mocks and ridicules other kids projects.

I am following this thread with interest, if not understanding. The failure of the distractions is a testament to the compelling nature of the work being hashed-out here.

Cheers,

Michael

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...