This post includes information from Dale Myer's work on film sync's.

It also includes information from Marcel Dehaeseleer's website.

When Myer's does his film sync with multiple films, he includes Tina Towner's in the mix.

For sync analysis, he has Towner's film running at 23.3 FPS, which would indicate to me, the camera's frame rate was 24 FPS.

Might take a look at how that was deduced. Outlined in one of the red boxes.

The Towner camera described at Marcel's site shows this camera runs at 16 FPS.

The show "Murder In Dealy Plaza" says Towner was using a "Sears Tower Varizoom 8mm Camera".

This is reflected in the photo with the camera, inset and documentation.

So Myer's basis his comparison on a camera running at 24 FPS which yields a total of 160+(8 missing frames)=168.

Total film time=7.16 SEC X 24 FPS = 168

I have found no documentation that states this camera runs at 24 FPS.

If it runs at its stated speed, then we have 16FPS yielding 160 frames = 10 SEC OF FILM.

Would 3 extra seconds at the end of the Towner film, made much difference?

Well, since acording to Myer's there was a .71 sec gap between the end of Towner and the beginning of Zapruder, then an overlap of about 2.5 seconds
would've occured.

With Towner panning toward the pedestal, it raises many possibilities.

And since I'm discussing film sync's, what would be the possibility that Towner's film duration of 7.16 seconds is almost identical to the time it takes Zapruder to film his opening/non-limo sequence which is 132 frames at 18.3 FPS=7.21 seconds.

It's almost as if one film was used as a timing instrument for the other.

You know, how long would it take to film the limo coming around the corner.

[b]Or maybe someone never stopped filming, thank you David Healy.

But, I'm just a conspiracy theorist and these are all coincidences.[/b]

chris

BTW,

For those that might not see the big picture in this, since Myer's has multiple films syncing with his presentation, from beginning to end, and the

syncing is wrong based on the incorrect FPS used, all films involved are wrong.

Which means they have all been tampered with.

This one's for you, JACK.


cheers
chris

A study was done on this site with the Nix, Zapruder, Muchmore, (possibly another one???) and they used the right camera speeds and they were found to be in sync. You might wish to have someone like Mack (or even contact) to make sure that you have your facts correct.

Bill

prove it! Simple as that.... You can't, nor can Gary Mack -- and we know it! Till you deliver the original camera masters and those versed in same can analyze them, you'er full of it --all the Lone Nut wishing and hoping won't change that....

David ... where was all this trash talk when Dolva and some others worked on showing all the films to be in sync??? Seems like you went quiet around that time. I always figured that was why you said 'I have seen no proof of alteration'.

BTW, did you find that request you made to Life Magazine detailing your request to examine the slides??? Did you at least come across their response to your request???

Bill

BM.......please cash your check and go away........you interupt every thread.....and have nothing to add.....ever...somthin' scarin' you?.......CD?.....just askin'.....tom

trash talk? Grow up son..... the slides and the trannies are at the 6th floor museum.... Been there for years! You didn't know that?

Now you've got a bit of work to do proving the DP films can be synced.

For those that would like to read/obtain the document created by Dale Myer's, from which I have posted previously, you can get it here:

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics.htm

Bill,

It's simple:

Just have someone provide the documentation that Towner's camera shot at 24 FPS.

I don't need to contact Gary. I've supplied my documentation/proof.

As far as I know, he's still trying to figure out why the limo movement animation I presented of frame 161-166 doesn't match the WC " Vehicle Speed Analysis" document supplied by Tom Purvis.

Why don't you contact him.

Eventually, the truth was going to come out, it was just a matter of time.

Well, Time's up!!!

chris

I suspect we are about to see an entirely different kind of tourist at the Sixth Form Museum. Will Dallas ever be the same again?

Paul

Eventually, the truth was going to come out, it was just a matter of time.

Well, Time's up!!!



Time expired long ago!

Merely takes additional time for the facts and history to "correct" and upright themselves.


Not unlike:

The World is flat!
The Earth is the center of the Universe

And what it took to get scientist to admit to a variety of things which include the Tetonic Plate theory of the Earth's crust.

So much mud & BS has been spread to date in regards to "alteration", that any new concept will have a total uphill battle to gain support and recognition.

Those in the LNer crowd such as DVP (the Parrot) will be attempting to throw mud on anything new, as will the completely asinine CT crowd who have that information conflict with and/or contradict their often silly unsupported theories as to reasons for potential alteration.

I wish you all the luck in the world Chris, you have worked hard on this.
However, you may rest assured that the battle has only begun.

My stuff, for whatever it is or may be worth, was packed away many years ago as there was no means by which to actually spread it around to seriously inclined persons who demonsrated a true interest in research.

Specter & Company could not have envisioned the computer and the internet, and it will ultimately be their downfall if those who know the WC is a lie will cease to chase mythological theories; assassins; etc. and concentrate on the facts.

Hope that in some minor way, I have opened a door or two for you.

Tom

David, just as I asked in another thread ... show us where you requested to see these slides and the reply you got in return. Better yet, tell us where you got the information that the Museum had the Life Magazine slides?? I see that you now have someone like poor Tom Kiehl all confused on what is truth and what is pure disinformation. I find it amazing that some people just embrace the stupid stuff that is said as if it is gospel without so much as double checking to see if you are right or not. The JFK assassination for some isn't an inquiry as much as it is a belief system in place for the cult minded individuals who post such garbage without first getting their facts straight. Someone please canvas John Simkin and seen if he will create a section for people who just wish to post anything and everything without so much as having a shred of proof to support what they say. Maybe Kiehl can post where he bothered to find out where those slides are ... I look forward to hearing what he discovered! (eyes-rolling~)

Bill Miller

Can any of you people post when and who you spoke with that makes you believe that the Museum has the Life Magazine slides in question or has this just become the 'say anything and to hell with it being true or not forum'? There seems to be a common these with a select few here to where they will bitch and complain about things that they obviously know nothing about. If any of you wish to prove me wrong, then simply reference when and to whom a request was made to the 6th Floor Museum asking to see the Life Magazine slides. I have done this and thats how I discovered who actually has the slides.

Bill Miller

Well this is for people who don't wish to remain ignorant of any data that may help them in their research ...

Gary Mack: Tina's story never changed: she stopped filming and a second or two later, the first shot sounded. She has given various versions over the years, sometimes using the word "immediately" rather than seconds. We've known each other since 1978 and have been good friends ever since.

When I transferred her original film to video several years ago, the technician and I paid close attention to an early scene on the reel of she and her father in a motel swimming pool, splashing water around. We adjusted the transfer speed to about 20fps to where the motion of the water looked normal.

But the Dealey Plaza footage was at the end of the reel and, as is well-known from camera tests of Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore, camera speeds varied by 5% or more from beginning to end and each film scene speed depends on several variables. Our transfer of the entire Towner reel was made at 20 fps, which is more than 10% faster than normal (which was almost certainly 18fps). The transfer probably shows the limo moving too fast. That, of course, is not a significant visual problem but it would wreak havoc with anyone using the video transfer to establish the camera's true speed.

"Gary Mack: Tina's story never changed: she stopped filming and a second or two later, the first shot sounded. She has given various versions over the years, sometimes using the word "immediately" rather than seconds. We've known each other since 1978 and have been good friends ever since.

When I transferred her original film to video several years ago, the technician and I paid close attention to an early scene on the reel of she and her father in a motel swimming pool, splashing water around. We adjusted the transfer speed to about 20fps to where the motion of the water looked normal. ..."

**********

that's called film alteration, Wild Bill.... (and the piece ended up on that videotape at 30fps or 29.97fps, eh?) You or Gary care to comment?

It is fantasy to say that any movie cameras ran at 18 fps. My studies of cameras
of that period showed these standard speeds:

16 fps...normal on some cameras
24 fps...normal on some cameras
48 fps...SLOW MOTION on most cameras

Note that both 16 (3x) and and 24 (2x) are multiples of 48.

18 is not.

Jack

I think that only an idiot would call the adjustment of the speed at which a film is viewed an 'alteration', especially when the alteration claims have always been said to be changes made within the image itself. But if thats all you can come up with ... I understand your trying to raise the point.

Bill Miller

Well this is for people who don't wish to remain ignorant of any data that may help them in their research ...

Gary Mack: Tina's story never changed: she stopped filming and a second or two later, the first shot sounded. She has given various versions over the years, sometimes using the word "immediately" rather than seconds. We've known each other since 1978 and have been good friends ever since.

When I transferred her original film to video several years ago, the technician and I paid close attention to an early scene on the reel of she and her father in a motel swimming pool, splashing water around. We adjusted the transfer speed to about 20fps to where the motion of the water looked normal.

But the Dealey Plaza footage was at the end of the reel and, as is well-known from camera tests of Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore, camera speeds varied by 5% or more from beginning to end and each film scene speed depends on several variables. Our transfer of the entire Towner reel was made at 20 fps, which is more than 10% faster than normal (which was almost certainly 18fps). The transfer probably shows the limo moving too fast. That, of course, is not a significant visual problem but it would wreak havoc with anyone using the video transfer to establish the camera's true speed.
[/quote]

And this would be for people searching for the TRUTH who can weed out all the "frame" and "frame transfer" B.S. because it's getting real thick.

So, here is 16 consecutive frames from a TOWNER HOME MOVIE CAMERA showing the frame edges..

Notice the nice even spacing among those edges.

And, if you would like to see these 16 frames play, you can obtain them here. It's around 18 megs in size.

http://76.89.67.73:6900/0BCF9/Towner.mov


And what a surprise, it takes approx 1 second to play. Had to use 15 FPS as my frame speed, closest I have to 16.

So don't be fooled by those who come up with these elaborate stories.

It's very simple:

The Towner's had a movie camera that filmed at 16 FPS.

They have family footage at 16 FPS.

They shot limo footage at 16 FPS.

What would make ANYONE think any differently is beyond me.

chris

Chris, I do not know if you even know the source for the images you use. Mack has ran the reel at the various speeds and only one looks natural. Maybe it would be nice if you emailed him your concerns and then pass along what ever info he has to offer you so others can see the exchange and determine if they are getting all the facts accurately.

Bill

The original question has NOT been answered.

The Towner camera shoots at 16 FPS, NOT 24.

The literature/documentation wouldn't state it shoots at 16FPS, if 24 was the correct rate.

It doesn't matter what it plays like, that's subjective. It doesn't matter if you've run it through a million projectors.

It doesn't matter what transfer methods have been used.

The ORIGINAL camera shoots at 16 FPS.

Why not run a valid test with it.

We know what the outcome would be.


chris

This is not rocket science. I have seen this type of thing come up in nature films. For instance, film a horse walking at 16 fps and then at 24 fps and see which one is natural. Mack has said, 'Camera speeds varied by 5% or more from beginning to end and each film scene speed depends on several variables. Our transfer of the entire Towner reel was made at 20 fps, which is more than 10% faster than normal (which was almost certainly 18fps). The transfer probably shows the limo moving too fast. That, of course, is not a significant visual problem but it would wreak havoc with anyone using the video transfer to establish the camera's true speed.'

I also know what Gary has said to you. So like I said ... you should post it so everything is on the table.

Bill

According to mfgr specs, no 8mm cameras run at 18 fps. They run at 16 fps, because that is the
PROJECTOR RATE. Camera rate must coordinate with projector rate. That is why there is an
American Standards Association.

Jack

We don't need analogies for viewing movies.

Show us documentation that states the Towner camera films at anything other than 16 FPS.

Of course the limo speed isn't reflective of the film FPS. Why do you think that is? It's not the ORIGINAL film.

Remember:

LESS FRAMES-SAME DISTANCE.

MORE FRAMES-SAME DISTANCE

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE SAME AMOUNT OF FRAMES, BUT REDISTRIBUTED.

And I'm still waiting for your response to limo distance traveled in 161/166 not matching the WC figure of .9 FT.


Gary's response was:

"Chris,

What do I think about your post #55? I think you don't know how to do photo interpretation. Here's how I would approach this simple math problem:

The conversion of miles per hour to feet/second is 1.4667. So 11.3 mph (the average speed of the limo on Elm as established by the FBI using the Z, Nix and Muchmore films) equates to 16.57 feet.

Using the 5 frame sequence you chose (161 to 166) is 5/18 of a second or .27 seconds. So the distance the limo traveled should be 16.57 x .27 = 4.48 feet.

What is the distance from the front bumper to the back side of the right front tire? Well, you can look that up but I think you'll find it's about 4 feet."

So who got it wrong, Bill. The WC or the Zfilm?

Is there a FRAME problem there also? Sound familiar.

BTW,

You asked about the syncing of Z, Nix and Muchmore.

Think about it.

When do these films overlap? It's not real difficult.

Think FRAME REDISTRIBUTION.

It's all MATH.


chris

Thanks Jack,

I'm not sure they understand the theory of standards.

chris

And then, there are also those who in addition to not being able to read and understand witness statements (Altgens), as well as do comparative analaysis of photographic evidence (Altgens/CE900/WC Re-enactment photo), also can not grasp and understand the basic principle of mathmatical computation.

It just so happens that MATH is accepted by the courts.

All that one has to do is provide sufficient evidence to prove that the computations are correct.

The WC Re-enactmey was COMPLETELY PHONY!

Their own evidence proves it.

In spite of being an admitted LONE NUTTER, sometimes Purvis actually makes lots of sense.

Jack

The standard was changed in the 1950s. The manufactures adjusted the cameras internally, but didn't bother creating new manuals. This stuff can be substantiated if someone really cared to do so.

Bill

and THAT internal adjustment is? And to think the 6th floor museum denied (yes folks, DENIED) Roland Zavada (the premiere Lone Nut, last word, on the Z-film) use of the Zapruder B&H414 camera to run a bit of film through. Why was that son?

C'mon all this nonsense could of been diverted, shills doing 6th Floor Museum bidding won't cut it

[quote]

and THAT internal adjustment is? And to think the 6th floor museum denied (yes folks, DENIED) Roland Zavada (the premiere Lone Nut, last word, on the Z-film) use of the Zapruder B&H414 camera to run a bit of film through. Why was that son?

C'mon all this nonsense could of been diverted, shills doing 6th Floor Museum bidding won't cut it
[/quote

For someone like yourself who feels that he is qualified to examine historical images ... you sure don't appear to know much about their history and whats already been done. Maybe this will help .........

"Bill,

This comes from the December 1964 issue of the Journal of the SMPTE (the
Society of Motion Picture & Television Engineers) organization. It
reflects the official new industry standard of 18fps for projectors and
movie cameras, which have "been in use for some time." According to
Zavada, the industry started changing from 16fps to 18fps in 1959. The
change was made to accommodate new brighter projection lamps which
tended to show a flickering image when used in projectors running at
16fps. At 18fps, the flicker was barely noticeable.

Gary Mack"

Click to view attachment Click to view attachment

Guess nobody bothered to read the document, which says the new standard
was adopted OCTOBER 26, 1964.

Now tell us again about the 18 fps standard on November 22 1963.

Jack

Miller and details don't work together. I can't wait to hear his response

Get ready to cry Paul!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=la61MLhlpLo&...feature=related

Since I could barely read it, here is what this part says. Red box enlarged.

Now what are the chances that Tina Towner had that 16 FPS LOCK BUTTON engaged while she was filming the limo.

That's 16 not 24


chris

Correct me if I am wrong, but experts can play a film at either of those two speeds and tell which one is the correct speed .... do you not agree and if not, then please explain why???

Bill

Jack, when I inquired about this, which is what people usually do before drawing their conclusions, I was left with the understanding that these camera manufacturers had made the changes to their running speeds by the late 1950's, but had not changed the data in their booklets, which wasn't recognized until 1964. So in other words ... the internal changes had been made before the assassination, but the already published data had not been corrected/updated so to be officially recognized until 1964. The FBI, Zavada, Groden, and others were obviously aware of this information ... while it seems that you and Healy were not.

Bill

Evolution of Standards to Higher Frame Rates: It has been acknowledged that Bell & Howell's and Eastman Kodak's engineering practice for cameras moved toward 18 fps in the late 50s, and that this velocity was not uncommon in USA practice. The committee action to change standards takes time. The published standard for camera velocity in use in 1963 (was) issued in 1954. Standards reflect practice and the evolutionary change to the higher frame rate of 18 frames per second was subsequently recognized in American National Standards that (was) issued in October of 1964 , for Camera and Projector Usage - PH22. 21 and PH22.22. Bell & Howell testing confirmed that the Zapruder camera operated at slightly faster than 18fps - meeting the requirements of the revised standard.

I have an 8 mm projector which was never used for anything except showing the Z film.
It runs at 16 fps. Whatever speed the film is shot at makes no difference to the projector...
the sprocket holes are what it uses to project at a uniform 16 fps.

If the film is shot at 16 fps, it shows the movie at ACTUAL REAL TIME SPEED.

If the film is shot at 18 fps, it shows the movie at slightly SLOWER THAN REAL TIME.

If the film is shot at 48 fps, it shows the movie at very SLOW MOTION SPEED.

So any movie shot faster than the projector fps when projected shows the
action AT A SLOWER SPEED...so 18 fps film is slightly SLOW MOTION.

Jack

Additional information to anyone who wishes to see it ...

"Bill,

In answer to your questions, the Towner camera was manufactured by Bell & Howell for Sears and sold at their stores under the Tower brand name. As documented in Roland Zavada's Report to the ARRB, and supported by documentation in the SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture & Television Engineers) archives, U.S. camera and projector manufacturers started a changeover from the 16 frames-per-second standard to 18fps in 1959. By 1964, as confirmed by the SMPTE publication you posted, the industry conversion was essentially complete and official.

The manufacturers changed production over time such that the same model produced early in the run might operate at 16fps and a later, otherwise identical, model would have been geared to run at the faster speed of 18fps. The determining factor, of course, is the observation of natural human movement in film from the camera in question.

I personally supervised the film to tape transfer of the camera-original Towner film some years ago. Every time the Towner film appears in TV programs, the producers use The Sixth Floor Museum's transfer. Whether they show it as-is or at a different speed is beyond the Museum's control.

Our initial transfer efforts started at 16fps and we quickly found that was too slow, for everyone seemed like they were moving in slow motion. Without doubt, 16fps was not that camera's normal speed. At 18fps - an increase of 12.5% - everything seemed to look much more normal, but it still seemed slow at the beginning of the reel. We settled on a transfer speed of 20fps throughout, during which most early scenes appeared normal; the final scenes, including the motorcade in Dealey Plaza, were preceded by family scenes in which it was hard to judge whether the movement was normal or not.

Since joining the Museum in 1994, I have personally overseen the film to tape transfers of the 8mm camera original Bronson, Hughes, Bell, Towner and Dorman films, the first generation Nix and Zapruder films, and many others showing motorcade scenes prior to Dealey Plaza. Those amateur cameras ran at either 16fps or 18fps, +/- several percentage points. With the exception of the Towner film, all were transferred at either 16 or 18fps, whichever produced the most natural movement. The film technician who has done all of the transfers has been providing his service for a couple decades; he has literally viewed hundreds and hundreds of films and has a superb eye and "feel" for the appropriate speed. The difference between 16fps and 18fps may seem small, but it is glaringly noticeable when viewed on professional monitors

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"

Subjective once again.

The CAMERA has to be capable of performing the feat. Show documentation it shoots at 24 FPS?

Where does the 8 FPS increase materialize from, in a camera that films at 16 FPS.

Or, if one is to believe 18 FPS, a 6 FPS increase from it's overextended speed capability.


chris

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/conn_j.htm


Mr. SPECTER. I have just one other question, Governor. With respect to the films and the slides which you have viewed this morning, had you ever seen those pictures before this morning?
Governor CONNALLY. I had seen what purported to be a copy of the film when I was in the hospital in Dallas. I had not seen the slides.
Mr. SPECTER. And when do you think you were hit on those slides, Governor, or in what range of slides?
Governor CONNALLY. We took--you are talking about the number of the slides?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
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----

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You Fool!

It was "your" numbering system that he was looking at!

Would this be referred to as "backpedalling" in order to get oneself out of a question which one should not have asked?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The series under our numbering system starts with a higher number when the car comes around the turn,

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


HMMMMMMMMMM!

I for one, do not recall ever having seen any film in which "the car" can be observed coming around the turn!


And I am most curious in regards to this "dual" numbering system!

Excellent observation!

Jack

No fool, Lahoma - CIA and the mob one and the same. Yup.

By the way, Al, do you think Mack will go floral for the new visiters?

Now there's a thought.

Paul

Is 16fps the only speed Towners camera ran at? If not, here's a scenario... Towner shot the film (accidently) at 12fps...Towner 8mm film bumped to 16mm at 16fps, a 8mm 16fps dupe was created from the above 16mm, the action was still to slow hence frame elimination (to speed up the film) rework by a film lab.... in other words ANOTHER altered film (before the 6th floor got it)

What's strange about this entire exchange is no one will affirm and/or certify, not to mention prove that the film GMack oversaw and worked with are in fact (this case the in-camera Towner) certified original[s]....

Ya need to get the questions to Mack so he and he only will respond. "BM" Miller is pure distraction hasn't a clue about films, speeds, gamma, emulsions... Hell, even Craig (the best the none alterationists Lone Nuts have) gave up on Miller -- to dense, evidently....

I'd missed this entirely, too. Thanks.

I would think that someone like yourself would want to know the answer to your question before offering up the 'what ifs'.



Hey ... why not make a request for YOU to examine the Towner film .... and then one for the Life Magazine slides at the same time. That way YOU will be able to confirm or deny for us. But first you have to actually care enough about what you are talking about to actually take action and do something.



David, can you post any emails or questions that you have presented to Mack??? And let us not forget that it was 'I' who knew where the Life Magazine slides were. It was 'I' who knew that since the late 1950s that the cameras had been bumped up to 18 fps from 16 fps. So excuse me if I smile each time you post how I don't know anything and yet it is you who is always asking the questions. LOL!!!!

Bill Miller

David,

The Towner camera has the same frame speed settings as the B/H 414.

Animation=1 frame at a time

Run Mode=16 FPS

Slow Motion=48 FPS

I did a couple of simple tests on my B/H 414.

Very easy to incorporate.

Camera on full wind.

1.Used a marking pen and drew a line on the film after the gate.

2.Used hand held stopwatch and filmed for 1, 3 and 5 seconds.

3.Marked same spot and counted frames run.

At intervals of 1, 3 and 5 seconds, my FPS were 16+17.

Tried Slow Motion mode twice. 48+50 FPS were the results.


chris

Chris, while I applaud your technical ability ... I must question your investigative ability. For instance, it has been reported that over a period of time ... the internal mechanisms of these cameras were changed so to run at 18 fps. Would it not be important to know if the camera you have came before or after these changes had taken place ... its surely something that I would wish to know. So if you please ... can you post the serial number of your camera so it can be compared to Towner's. The reason for this is important because if the camera you have was made BEFORE the changes had taken place, then the running speed of your camera is a moot point.

Thanks,

Bill

you certainly have a tough time posting cites and/or proof, don't ya.? "it has been reported that over a period of time..." GREAT investigative skills -- LMFAO!

The 'cite' came days ago when you must have been doing this again Click to view attachment

... it came by way of a quote. Knowing you ... you'll want to read the original text, so have at it Mr. Research.

B/H 414: SERIAL# AJ75417


chris

Thanks, Chris ... now do you recall if Zapruder's serial number is higher or lower than yours???

Bill

Bill,

I believe the Z camera serial# starts with AS, as his incorporated the power zoom feature.

My research tells me mine is the earlier model of the 414, as the power zoom models came out next.

chris