George Sawtelle Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 Mathias Excellent question. Thomas indicates that the blur analysis and the acoustics analysis back up each other. I have the book and checked out both and it's very close, but not exact. IMO Farrell made Thomas accept the SBT. So in Thomas's conclusion he supports the SBT and four shots. Thomas must have wanted his book published so much that he accepted the SBT despite the fact that the SBT violates physical law and the SBT bullet was almost pristine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddy Bainbridge Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 18 hours ago, George Sawtelle said: Mathias Excellent question. Thomas indicates that the blur analysis and the acoustics analysis back up each other. I have the book and checked out both and it's very close, but not exact. Hi George, I am very interested in the above statement. I am convinced by the correlation between the acoustic evidence and other evidence , but my confidence in evidence does not stretch to believing the Zapruder film has not been altered. When you say that the correlation is not exact can you clarify where it is inexact? The commentary by experts on the film appears to leave open the possibility of some frame removal. If the acoustic evidence doesn't quite match the blur analysis, could that be because the Zapruder film doesn't quite match actual events? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Sawtelle Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 (edited) Eddy We are on the same wavelength. I've thought about the very same thing. Time of impulse (shot) Zap film blur 136.20 sec back Ken. the misfire DelTex bldg Z158 1.5 sec 1.7 sec 137.70 sec throat picket fence GN behind pergola Z189 1.6 sec 2.0 sec 139.27 sec Connally shot probably DelTex bldg Z224 1.1 sec 3.3 sec 140.32 sec missed shot injury Tague TSBD Z290 4.6 sec 1.3 sec 144.90 sec head shot GN Z313 0.7 sec 1.0 sec 145.61 sec missed shot lodged in grass southside Elm TSBD Z331 The first column taken from Table 13 pg 582 "Hear No Evil" Thomas. The second column are my notes. The third column taken from Table 2 and Figure 6.3 pgs 208 and 209 "Hear No Evil" Thomas. I derived the time internal for the Zap film blur by dividing 18.3 (frames per sec) into the difference between the Z frames. There is good correlation in the beginning and ending sequences but major difference in the middle sequence. The difference could be two-fold. 1. Not enough shooter positions for the acoustical analysis. BBN used two positions, the TSBD and the GN. And BBN did not use the GN for all targets. 2. The Zapruder film was definitely altered. The alteration would throw off the blur analysis with regard to the Z frames. Edited October 24, 2017 by George Sawtelle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddy Bainbridge Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 (edited) On 10/19/2017 at 7:45 PM, George Sawtelle said: Eddy We are on the same wavelength. I've thought about the very same thing. Time of impulse (shot) Zap film blur 136.20 sec back Ken. the misfire DelTex bldg Z158 1.5 sec 1.7 sec 137.70 sec throat picket fence GN behind pergola Z189 1.6 sec 2.0 sec 139.27 sec Connally shot probably DelTex bldg Z224 1.1 sec 3.3 sec 140.32 sec missed shot injury Tague TSBD Z290 4.6 sec 1.3 sec 144.90 sec head shot GN Z313 0.7 sec 1.0 sec 145.61 sec missed shot lodged in grass southside Elm TSBD Z331 The first column taken from Table 13 pg 528 "Hear No Evil" Thomas. The second column are my notes. The third column taken from Table 2 and Figure 6.3 pgs 208 and 209 "Hear No Evil" Thomas. I derived the time internal for the Zap film blur by dividing 18.3 (frames per sec) into the difference between the Z frames. There is good correlation in the beginning and ending sequences but major difference in the middle sequence. The difference could be two-fold. 1. Not enough shooter positions for the acoustical analysis. BBN used two positions, the TSBD and the GN. And BBN did not use the GN for all targets. 2. The Zapruder film was definitely altered. The alteration would throw off the blur analysis with regard to the Z frames. Hi George, I am extremely grateful to you for posting this data, but unfortunately I am too stupid to understand it. Please could you help me? I understand there are several points at which the 'shots' on the dictabelt can be compared with the Z-film. In order these are; Kennedy lifts arms, flap of Connally 's lapel (I can't see this but I think analysis was done which found it in the film), and Headshot. I'm guessing your references to blur analysis for other points are predictions (or is there evidence I am missing?). How does your table align the results of blur analysis with acoustic (is there a start point somehow?, and what are your references to seconds, I don't understand what they refer to. Many thanks in advance. Edited October 23, 2017 by Eddy Bainbridge spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Sawtelle Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 (edited) Eddy I started with Column 3, which I took from Table 2 and Fig 6.3 pgs 208 and 209 Thomas's book. The three scientists, working independently, determined the blur or jiggle on the Zapruder film. The blurs they found were not on the exact same Z frame, but they were close. For instance, Hartmann found a blur at Z158 and Scott found a blur at Z158. Alvarez did not have any frames before Z173 so of course he could not have found anything at Z158. Alvarez used the Zapruder Film that was given to the Warren Commission for their study, which did not include any frames before Z173, and Z208, Z209, CZ210, Z211, Z212. Hartmann and Scott used a later version of Zapruder Film that had frames before Z178 but not frames Z208-Z212. Alvarez found a jiggle at Z182, Hartmann at Z191 and Scott at Z193. I averaged the numbers and came up with Z189. Alvarez found a jiggle at Z221, Hartmann at Z227 and Scott Z226. I averaged the numbers and came up with Z224. Similarly for the Z290, Z313 and Z332. I then took the six shots found by BBN from their acoustic analysis of the dictabelt in the order that they were given on Table 13 pg 582 and lined up the six jiggles to the six shots, with the first shot at 136.20 lined up with the blur at Z158 and so forth. The time between the shots I derived by simply subtracting the times given and the time between the jiggles I derived as given above. The first shot at 136.20 matched to targets near the intersection of Houston and Elm and since the blur at Z158 is nearest the intersection I lined up 136.20 to Z158. Also the highest match to the grassy knoll on the dictabelt was the shot at 144.9 so I matched that up with the blur at Z313, the head shot. The shots between the first and the fifth shots I matched up the the blurs between the blurs Z158 and Z313 and the last shot I matched up with the last blur. I did not use the flap of the lapel or the hands going up to determine the time of the jiggles or the shots. I do not believe that the lapel flap or the hands going up is of any help. The Zapruder Film that the Warren Commission used for their report is not the same as the extant Zapruder Film, or the film we see on the internet, or the film that Hartmann and Scott used for their blur analysis. Alvarez used the same film the Warren Commission used while Hartmann and Scott used the extant Zapruder Film. And thus the discrepancy we see in Alvarez's blur analysis is a result of Alvarez using a different film than did Hartmann and Scott. The lapel flap and the hands to the throat came from the Warren Commission study of the film given to them by LIFE not from the extant Zapruder Film. I'll give you a good example of what I mean. Alvarez found a jiggle at Z221. Hartmann and Scott both found a jiggle at Z227 and Z226 respectively. The extant Zapruder Film shows Z224 to occur immediately after the Stemmons sign. So if that is true, then Avarez could never have seen a jiggle at Z221 simply because that frame, Z221, based on the extant film was behind the Stemmons sign. I do believe Alvarez saw a jiggle at Z221 but he used a different film. IMO, the difference results from frames being removed from the extant film in the area immediately after the Stemmons sign. Another good example is the blur at Z189. Alvarez found a jiggle at Z181 while Hartmann found one at Z191 and Scott at Z193. This difference could be the result of the number of frames different from the film Alvarez used and the film Hartmann and Scott used. Edited October 24, 2017 by George Sawtelle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Sawtelle Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 (edited) Eddy Part 2 We know that a LIFE technician destroyed Z frames 208-212 by accident, according to LIFE. I also believe frames were removed in the area immediately after the Stemmons sign. Both the "destruction" of frames Z208-Z212 and the removal of frames immediately after the Stemmons sign were accomplishd for one reason only ... to sell the SBT. Frames were also removed in the area of the intersection of Houston and Elm. This was accomplished to eliminate any effects on the film of Kennedy being shot in the back. Also the backfire or fire cracker theory was circulated as an attempt to eliminate the rifle (misfire) shot that hit Kennedy in the back which bolstered the SBT. The frames removed near the intersection where replaced by new frames which do not show Kennedy reacting to being shot in the back or the loud noise that occurred at the intersection. Frames were also removed before and after Z313. This was done, IMO, because the paint job to close the hole in the back of Kennedy's head did not pass the plotters inspection. The paint job was much too crude. There were several frames where the plotters accepted paint but I think they had no choice, IMO. The removal of the frames and the addition of new frames at the intersection of Houston and Elm, the destruction of frames Z208-Z212, the removal of frames immediately after the Stemmons sign and the removal of frames near frame Z313 has caused problems with the blur analysis and for researchers who seek to determine the true speed of the film i.e., frames per sec. Edited October 24, 2017 by George Sawtelle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy Wieselquist Posted April 30, 2018 Share Posted April 30, 2018 (edited) On 10/19/2017 at 2:45 PM, George Sawtelle said: Time of impulse (shot) Zap film blur 136.20 sec back Ken. the misfire DelTex bldg Z158 1.5 sec 1.7 sec 137.70 sec throat picket fence GN behind pergola Z189 1.6 sec 2.0 sec 139.27 sec Connally shot probably DelTex bldg Z224 1.1 sec 3.3 sec 140.32 sec missed shot injury Tague TSBD Z290 4.6 sec 1.3 sec 144.90 sec head shot GN Z313 0.7 sec 1.0 sec 145.61 sec missed shot lodged in grass southside Elm TSBD Z331 The first column taken from Table 13 pg 582 "Hear No Evil" Thomas. The second column are my notes. The third column taken from Table 2 and Figure 6.3 pgs 208 and 209 "Hear No Evil" Thomas. I derived the time internal for the Zap film blur by dividing 18.3 (frames per sec) into the difference between the Z frames. There is good correlation in the beginning and ending sequences but major difference in the middle sequence. The difference could be two-fold. 1. Not enough shooter positions for the acoustical analysis. BBN used two positions, the TSBD and the GN. And BBN did not use the GN for all targets. 2. The Zapruder film was definitely altered. The alteration would throw off the blur analysis with regard to the Z frames. Michael Crane, Good topic, a good exercise. I agree with your shot estimate, "about 9 or more" -- which is shown by the physical evidence. IMO, we can nail down that 6 shots hit inside the limo. I'll deal with that first. Later, I'll deal with the shots that hit outside the limo, 3 at the very least; most likely 4 or 5. [ASIDE: It must be remembered that 1.) most of the 9-11 shots came from rifles with sound suppressors, 2.) supersonic "cracks" may have been heard by witnesses near the bullets' paths, 3.) the assassins tried to fire in volleys so that multiple shots could sound/look as one to witnesses -- the freshly-painted orange stripes on Elm Street's south curb (one at Jean Hill's feet) were meant to aide in these fusillades. These 3 factors caused witnesses in different places to hear different gunshot noises.] The 6 shots that hit inside the limo: 1.) on Pres. Kennedy, around Z190-200 (while JFK behind "Stemmons sign") -- from South Knoll, IN lower third of throat, graze rt side trachea, graze top rt lung, OUT back between spine (T4 or 5 level) and right shoulder blade. These wounds line up and point to SK about where the postal bldg. parking lot meets the south end of TUP. About 15 degrees up and 15 degrees to Kennedy's left. If the direction were reversed, the bullet would have had to originate from the Lincoln's trunk. 2.) on Gov. Connally, around Z220 -- from TSBD 6th floor, 2nd or 3rd window from SW corner, where Lee "the Wizard of" Oswald stationed himself. ~30 degrees vertical, 40 lateral to JBC at this point. IN back near rt armpit, along 5th rib, OUT under and left of rt nipple. Of those who were against JFKA, LO had infiltrated the plot more than anyone, better than Gary Underhill, Richard C. Nagell, Eugene Dinkins combined. And Ozzie was determined to make the TX governor pay SOMEthing for his treachery because he had to know that JBC was integral to the conspiracy. Besides, LO had his own list of previous beefs against John Con. Soon after The Big Event, EVERY adult who knew Lee well said something along the lines of, "I can see him shooting Gov. Connally, but Pres. Kennedy...?!" I believe a lot of Loy Factor's account in The Men on the Sixth Floor, esp. his lineup: LF in SW window, LO two windows east, and Mac Wallace in the SE window "sniper's nest," with Ruth Ann Martinez working the radio behind LO. 3.) on JBC, around 290 -- again from LO on 6th floor (much closer to the NW stairs than the SE "sniper nest"). IN top rt wrist (radius, a very hard bone, on the thumb side of wrist), out underside of wrist. The bullet had separated into at least 2 pieces, one going into his left thigh, the other putting a ding in the chrome plate for the ashtray that was on the back of the front seat. Much neglected, this is on p. 70 of Robert Groden's The Killing of a President. 5. and 4.) on JFK's head, very close together around 313 of the horribly mutilated Zap film, see George Sawtelle above. ONE came from the North Knoll (the Grassy), most likely some kind of frangible that left a constellation of particles on its path from IN over the rt ear to the cowlick area. OR A piece of the bullet may have gone out that crown/cowlick area, as Robert Harris believes, I believe. The OTHER head bullet around 313 came from pretty much the same direction as the first shot that hit inside the limo, most likely that SK sniper. IN LEFT temple (very much neglected, several witnesses) and OUT RIGHT occiput. BUT it is POSSIBLE, the more I look at it, that the extremely questionable Bill Greer could have made that shot when Kennedy's head was bent forward from Greer slowing the car down so much**. Didn't the Canadian Norman Similas, right there, hear the loudest boom at this point? Jackie was in shock after this, doesn't remember anything after this. The Connallys bounce around like flying squirrels at this point, spraying the yellow roses of TX all over the place. But it was probably from the South Knoll, this shot that went in left forehead/temple and out right occiput, exposing the cerebellum. And right as, or right before, the dumdum from NK. **At Parkland, Greer had the most colorful and specific observation, "His head looked like a hard-boiled egg with the top chopped (or sawed) off." Therefore, he saw it real good before Jackie and others tried to screw it back into place. 6.) chrome windshield trim, around Z330 or down in front of the steps. Ozzie's last attempt to make the murderers of democracy and decency pay something for their worse than Judas-and-Brutus-put-together perfidy. Remember his crummy MC shot high and to the right, so he was probably aiming at Greer at this point, esp. with JBC hugging the floor of the jumpseat area. You can tell this shot came from high and to the right by the direction of the dent into the hardest metal known (and used) at the time, Chrome. Very much neglected is the dent in the back of the rearview mirror. The dent in the chrome strip, the rearview mirror, and the crack in the windshield are all in a line, and point back to high up on the SW corner of TSBD, the perch of The Wizard of Ozziewaldskovich. Shots (possible) outside the limo (shot origins -- County Records, Dal-Tex, TSBD, NK): -- before Z133, when the limo was turning onto Elm; pockmarks in JFK's rt face; films burned up for several frames at this point a la Robert Harris; probably from Dal-Tex. (N.B.: the most obvious example of Z-film tampering, as if Zappie stopped filming just WHEN the Prez came into view, then STARTED filming AGAIN when he was about to go behind the later moved/phony Stemmons sign) -- front of limo, center of street -- at Jean Hill's feet, repeatedly asked about by SS and FBI -- Tague -- manhole cover -- Stemmons Freeway sign. Is anyone here an expert on when and why the sign was moved? The back of the one in Z is not the one there 11/22/63. Plenty of reasons why, but this post is running on........ George Sawtelle, Thanks for that nice summary/recap of the dictabelt spikes compared to the blurs of Z. It's helping me refine my picture of this part of the coup de 63. Edited April 30, 2018 by Roy Wieselquist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Marshall Posted April 30, 2018 Share Posted April 30, 2018 (edited) As some one who did two separate tours in Detroit Homicide and who was the original training sergeant for the SWAT Team there I've found that eye and ear witnesses are often of little value. "Most human truths are fiction to God" Me Edited April 30, 2018 by Evan Marshall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Marshall Posted April 30, 2018 Share Posted April 30, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, Evan Marshall said: Edited May 1, 2018 by Evan Marshall dupplicate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted April 30, 2018 Share Posted April 30, 2018 A lot of people discount Loy Factor because he seems to have been manipulated into agreeing with the story propositions of the people who wrote The Men on the Sixth Floor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now