Splice in Tina Towner Film

[Chris Davidson]

This is how the (WC) uses manipulation.

Let's pretend that we don't have access and have never watched the zfilm. Then, someone supplies us with an official document that states the limo was traveling at 2.24mph at a certain time. 

Could I make the assumption it was averaging 2.24mph for longer than 5frames =.273 seconds, even though that's what the document entails?

How would we know the total frame count during that 2.24mph span? 

 

[Michael Walton]

Sorry Chris but this is  a  *forum* which means open debate. It's  important  to  hold  all theories up to  open scrutiny.

It's  actually  not  hard to debate  yours because it pretty  much is meaningless  nonsense. Still as you  continue  to  ramble  on about  it someone  needs  to  hold  it  up as well.

Since you've now moved into telling me to be quiet or to go away, it's  richly ironic that you're  now  taking  the  stance that the MSM takes about  the  entire  case

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Michael Walton writes:

Quote

As I've said numerous times even if all of these hidden figures mean something in the overall scheme of things they prove absolutely nothing in the assassination.

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 ):

Quote

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.

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:

Quote

Since I've been corresponding  with you [Chris] on EF you STILL to this day have not answered the simple question of WHAT do your hidden figures prove in relation to the murder.

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.

 

[Michael Clark]

2 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Sorry Chris but this is  a  *forum* which means open debate. It's  important  to  hold  all theories up to  open scrutiny.

It's  actually  not  hard to debate  yours because it pretty  much is meaningless  nonsense. Still as you  continue  to  ramble  on about  it someone  needs  to  hold  it  up as well.

Since you've now moved into telling me to be quiet or to go away, it's  richly ironic that you're  now  taking  the  stance that the MSM takes about  the  entire  case

Correct Michael. However if a forum is like a mall, it would seem like rather bizarre behavior for one to walk into all the shops containing items in which he has no interest, and berating the customers and staff.

Imagine yourself, if you will, at a rack of yoga pants, complaining, nay, yelling-out- that they are not your size, style or color?

Do you really want to be that guy?

[Chris Davidson]

The inability of Michael and Jeremy to directly address/disprove the information being provided speaks volumes.

The earth is still flat to these guys because someone keeps telling them it is. 

Here's an easy question to answer: Yes or No

Do you believe Tina Towner's 8mm camera ran at an average 22.8fps as stated by Dale Myers in his multi-sync project?

Remember, that is an average, so doing a little simple math could yield (24+21.6 speeds)=45.6/2 =22.8fps

I guess they fed the camera some "speed" before filming ensued.

So please tell us film experts, when does a 8mm camera become a 16mm/24fps camera.

24fps - 5% (1.2fps) variation = 24 -1.2 = 22.8fps

This is why there are industry standards. 

Excerpt from Gary Mack on Towner's film: "The Towner film's true speed is likely closer to 18fps or slightly faster for most of the reel than to any other speed; it certainly was not operating at 16fps on November 22, 1963. Gary Mack"

I didn't agree with GM on many aspects of this case, but his common sense answer to Towner's frame rate is more than appropriate.

Slightly faster would include 18.3 which is exactly what I'm using to discredit Myers.

So, go back and look at the rest of the A-B-C's and start discovering a world that is round.

[Chris Davidson]

19 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

This is how the (WC) uses manipulation.

Let's pretend that we don't have access and have never watched the zfilm. Then, someone supplies us with an official document that states the limo was traveling at 2.24mph at a certain time. 

Could I make the assumption it was averaging 2.24mph for longer than 5frames =.273 seconds, even though that's what the document entails?

How would we know the total frame count during that 2.24mph span? 

 

If there is any doubt that 30ft and the 167 frame total of Towner's film is not connected to both WC CE884 documents, let me lay that idea to rest right now.

167 frames = 100 + 67 frames

167frames /18.3fps = 9.125 sec

30ft/9.125 sec = 3.287... ft per sec /1.47 (1mph) = 2.236mph

100 frames/18.3fps = 5.464 sec

30ft/5.464 sec = 5.49ft per sec = 3.735mph

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OWDB2VUhBRGllcW8/view?usp=sharing

The orange version of CE884 will yield a limo speed of: 18.3fps/3frames = 6.1 x .9ft = 5.49ft per sec = 3.735mph

The white version of CE884 will yield a limo speed of: 18.3fps/5frames = 3.66 x .9ft = 3.294ft per sec = 2.24mph

So once again, how was it the WC arrived at the limo traveling at 2.24 and 3.74 mph?

Enquiring minds want to know.

 

 

Edited April 26, 2017 by Chris Davidson

[Michael Walton]

So now Chris Davidson  is quoting as his proof none other than Gary Mack? Really?  The same Gary Mack who could never be trusted except to mouth the boilerplate WC? The same Gary Mack who participated in a "scientific" TV show, and where the producers actually added a fake photo of the three guys standing on the steps, but they moved the photo almost down to the sidewalk, to convince people watching that the SB nonsense is the correct answer and, thus, the conclusion?

It's pretty amazing that a CTer like Chris Davidson is now quoting Gary Mack, a known l--i--a--r, to try to back up his ridiculous math theories. And let's, for argument sake, accept that Towner's film was shot at 22 FPS.  The reply to that is - so what?  Why is he worried about a film shot at 22 FPS - or even 16 FPS for that matter - showing the limo way up at the intersection of Houston and Elm?  What could that possibly have anything to do with anything sinister?

When you have a CTer quoting a known WC mouthpiece, then you can see the desperation to prop up a crazy theory oozing out.

And BTW - I'd absolutely love to see Chris Davidson respond to Pat Speer's analysis of this whole thing.

Meanwhile, MC compared me arguing here to someone going into the mall and spouting off.  The last time I remember going to a mall and returning merchandise, you can rest assured I did so politely...but not that it's your business to begin with.  A better comparison would be for me to go to a convention with people saying there's conspiracy everywhere - like little green men, and fake wires hanging up fake moon landing images, and people standing around saying that everything under the sun in the Kennedy case has been faked. Then yes - there's going to be a lot of vigorous debate because, to me, these people do nothing but muddle the entire Kennedy case. Their "truth" and the real truth will never be reconciled.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Michael Walton

[Chris Davidson]

9 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

If there is any doubt that 30ft and the 167 frame total of Towner's film is not connected to both WC CE884 documents, let me lay that idea to rest right now.

167 frames = 100 + 67 frames

167frames /18.3fps = 9.125 sec

30ft/9.125 sec = 3.287... ft per sec /1.47 (1mph) = 2.236mph

100 frames/18.3fps = 5.464 sec

30ft/5.464 sec = 5.49ft per sec = 3.735mph

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OWDB2VUhBRGllcW8/view?usp=sharing

The orange version of CE884 will yield a limo speed of: 18.3fps/3frames = 6.1 x .9ft = 5.49ft per sec = 3.735mph

The white version of CE884 will yield a limo speed of: 18.3fps/5frames = 3.66 x .9ft = 3.294ft per sec = 2.24mph

So once again, how was it the WC arrived at the limo traveling at 2.24 and 3.74 mph?

Enquiring minds want to know.

 

 

67/2 = 33.5 /18.3 = 1.83sec

30/1.83 = 16.393ft per sec = 11.151mph

152/18.3 =8.3sec

136.1/8.3 = 16.397 = 11.154mph

 

[Chris Davidson]

6 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

So now Chris Davidson  is quoting as his proof none other than Gary Mack? Really?  The same Gary Mack who could never be trusted except to mouth the boilerplate WC? The same Gary Mack who participated in a "scientific" TV show, and where the producers actually added a fake photo of the three guys standing on the steps, but they moved the photo almost down to the sidewalk, to convince people watching that the SB nonsense is the correct answer and, thus, the conclusion?

It's pretty amazing that a CTer like Chris Davidson is now quoting Gary Mack, a known l--i--a--r, to try to back up his ridiculous math theories. And let's, for argument sake, accept that Towner's film was shot at 22 FPS.  The reply to that is - so what?  Why is he worried about a film shot at 22 FPS - or even 16 FPS for that matter - showing the limo way up at the intersection of Houston and Elm?  What could that possibly have anything to do with anything sinister?

When you have a CTer quoting a known WC mouthpiece, then you can see the desperation to prop up a crazy theory oozing out.

And BTW - I'd absolutely love to see Chris Davidson respond to Pat Speer's analysis of this whole thing.

Meanwhile, MC compared me arguing here to someone going into the mall and spouting off.  The last time I remember going to a mall and returning merchandise, you can rest assured I did so politely...but not that it's your business to begin with.  A better comparison would be for me to go to a convention with people saying there's conspiracy everywhere - like little green men, and fake wires hanging up fake moon landing images, and people standing around saying that everything under the sun in the Kennedy case has been faked. Then yes - there's going to be a lot of vigorous debate because, to me, these people do nothing but muddle the entire Kennedy case. Their "truth" and the real truth will never be reconciled.

Lack of Research.

[Chris Davidson]

9.3 x 1.47 = 13.671ft per sec

1.8sec x 13.671 = 24.6ft

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

67/18.3 = 3.661

3.661 + Myers 1.8 sec fps switch = 5.461 sec

5.461sec x 18.3 fps = 100frames

[Chris Davidson]

z133 + 67 = 200 frames + Myers 1.8sec fps switch = 233 frames

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.

 

[Michael Walton]

Yep, more crazy numbers  from Davidson that only add up in his mind and no one else's.

Yep, still no real debate to counter Speer's analysis or mine or others.

No big reveal to WHY or HOW the number spewing helps readers understand  the  case.

Yep, just more meaningless  numbers.

Edited April 27, 2017 by Michael Walton

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Michael Walton writes:

Quote

No big reveal to WHY or HOW the number spewing helps readers understand the case. Yep, just more meaningless numbers.

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:

Quote

If there is any doubt that 30ft and the 167 frame total of Towner's film is not connected to both WC CE884 documents, let me lay that idea to rest right now.

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.

 

[Thomas Graves]

19 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.

 

"Again we are presented [by Chris] 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."

............................................................................................................

 

Excellent analysis, synthesis and summing up, Jeremy.

One can't blame Chris for making it all so cryptic, though, because he must know that members who try to disprove that any given photograph or film was altered by the evil, evil CIA (et al.) are furiously jumped upon by Alterationists (especially those who also belong to the Harvey and Lee cult, not that it necessarily pertains to this thread at the moment), you know, like hot stinking "spaghetti" is jumped upon by flies.

--  Tommy

Edited April 27, 2017 by Thomas Graves