Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Maarten Coumans

Splice in Tina Towner Film

Recommended Posts

This post is amazing!  Almost 10 years later I posted the same frames from Tina Towner as Maarten Coumans.  She and others were discussing splices in these frames.  

There are many splices in the film throughout it.  They really didn't look at the frames for content.  The first frame posted is a fine example of using black paint to obscure imagery.  The photo editors of that frame did not want you to see what was happening.

The second frame explains what is happening in written language.  This frame is what I call the "hit X" frame.  

I posted these frames as a gift of understanding from Tina Towner.

This film is heavily edited.  No where do you get to see who is in the doorway of TSBD instead you see black paint.

Jackie Kennedy looks like a mannequin or robot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert Harris analyzes the Towner film in this Youtube video:

He concludes that there was a suppressed shot at the turn onto Elm Street which caused JFK to startle, slump to the left and then sit back up again.

Testimony from two Secret Service agents in the followup car would seem to support this.  See John Costella's Assassination Research pp 44-45:

http://assassinationresearch.com/v5n1/v5n1costella.pdf

Sam Kinney (Secret Service agent, driving the follow-up car), November 22, 1963: “The first shot was fired, I glanced from the taillight of [the Presidential limousine] at the President and it appeared that he had been shot because he slumped to the left. Immediately he sat up again.” [Statement: CE1024: 18H732] What Happened on Elm Street? 45 The Eyewitnesses Speak

George Hickey (Secret Service agent, in the follow-up car), November 22, 1963: “As [the Presidential limousine] made the turn and proceeded a short distance I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear. I stood partially up and turned to the rear to see if I could observe anything. Nothing was observed and I turned and looked at the President’s car. The President was slumped to the left in the car and I observed him come up.” [Statement: 18H765]

These statements would seem to refer to the turn onto Elm because nowhere else do we see JFK slump to the left and then sit back up again.

If you buy into this first shot at the turn on Elm hypothesis, then the Aubrey Rike ambulance may suggest what the original plot was.  Recall that witness testimony said that Greer made a very wide turn onto Elm, almost hitting the curb.  And there had been an ambulance parked at that spot until a few minutes before the motorcade arrival.  Aubrey Rike told researchers that there had been many false alarms for an ambulance at the corner of Elm and Houston in the days preceeding the assassination:

http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/rike.html

Perhaps the original plan was to have the ambulance in the intersection when the limo arrived, bringing the motorcade to a halt, and shooting JFK in the intersection.  Since the motorcade was running late, the timing was off and the ambulance left the intersection a few minutes prior to the motorcade arrival.

What do you all think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could someone explain the frames presented by Robin Unger so that I don't get the wrong idea here.  The frames are related to what was happening in the intersection and in front of the TSBD?

Has anyone done the same thing with events in front of the Court Records Building on Houston Street?  There are 8 films that go haywire there or skip that part of Houston Street in the film record.  At least. I can't find any film or photo that shows the presidential limousine passing that building.  All I've seen skip that area. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Curme's statements and the Harris film seem to support my analysis of 50 witnesses who were located the closest to the 6th floor sniper's nest or saw some activity at the TSBD.

These witnesses were in the TSBD, or on the front steps, or nearby on Elm Street or Houston Street when they heard shots.

I analyzed their statements to see where the President was when they heard shots.  24 out of 50 witnesses, nearly half, heard shots when the presidential vehicle turned off Houston onto Elm or when the President was in front of the TSBD.

 

 

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Hume   

Ollie Curme wrote: “Perhaps the original plan was to have the ambulance in the intersection when the limo arrived, bringing the motorcade to a halt, and shooting JFK in the intersection. Since the motorcade was running late, the timing was off and the ambulance left the intersection a few minutes prior to the motorcade arrival. What do you all think?”

 

Or perhaps the Jerry B Belknap ambulance was a key part of a counter plot (Oswald and associates) to force the motorcade to take an alternative route. Even though running late, the motorcade made a couple of unscheduled stops (hand-shaking) to allow time for the ambulance problem to be solved. 

 
Edited by Tom Hume

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ollie Curme said:

Robert Harris analyzes the Towner film in this Youtube video:

He concludes that there was a suppressed shot at the turn onto Elm Street which caused JFK to startle, slump to the left and then sit back up again.

Testimony from two Secret Service agents in the followup car would seem to support this.  See John Costella's Assassination Research pp 44-45:

http://assassinationresearch.com/v5n1/v5n1costella.pdf

Sam Kinney (Secret Service agent, driving the follow-up car), November 22, 1963: “The first shot was fired, I glanced from the taillight of [the Presidential limousine] at the President and it appeared that he had been shot because he slumped to the left. Immediately he sat up again.” [Statement: CE1024: 18H732] What Happened on Elm Street? 45 The Eyewitnesses Speak

George Hickey (Secret Service agent, in the follow-up car), November 22, 1963: “As [the Presidential limousine] made the turn and proceeded a short distance I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear. I stood partially up and turned to the rear to see if I could observe anything. Nothing was observed and I turned and looked at the President’s car. The President was slumped to the left in the car and I observed him come up.” [Statement: 18H765]

These statements would seem to refer to the turn onto Elm because nowhere else do we see JFK slump to the left and then sit back up again.

If you buy into this first shot at the turn on Elm hypothesis, then the Aubrey Rike ambulance may suggest what the original plot was.  Recall that witness testimony said that Greer made a very wide turn onto Elm, almost hitting the curb.  And there had been an ambulance parked at that spot until a few minutes before the motorcade arrival.  Aubrey Rike told researchers that there had been many false alarms for an ambulance at the corner of Elm and Houston in the days preceeding the assassination:

http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/rike.html

Perhaps the original plan was to have the ambulance in the intersection when the limo arrived, bringing the motorcade to a halt, and shooting JFK in the intersection.  Since the motorcade was running late, the timing was off and the ambulance left the intersection a few minutes prior to the motorcade arrival.

What do you all think?

The first loud report was almost certainly at z190-224. Consider the Croft photo (equivalent of z161), taken when Robert Croft said the first shot came moments after (he says he snapped a fourth photograph simultaneous with "the shot that killed the President", which is now apparently non-existent). Hugh Betzner said the first shot was heard just as he was winding his camera after taking his photo (equivalent of z186). Phillip Willis said that his fifth photo (equivalent of z202 or 210, I've heard both) was snapped simultaneously with the first shot he heard. The witness statements make a lot more sense when you orient them with the first shot coming at z190-224. No witness ever said they saw JFK smiling and waving after the first shot. There is no hard evidence for any loud report before that, the only thing that comes close is Connally's quick head turn after z160.

Edited by Micah Mileto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ollie Curme's post has this:  Testimony from two Secret Service agents in the followup car would seem to support this.  See John Costella's Assassination Research pp 44-45:

http://assassinationresearch.com/v5n1/v5n1costella.pdf 

I read through Mr. Costella's list of witnesses.  Many are the same as the ones I used.  Where we differ is that in all cases whenever possible I used what the witness said in their first witness statement.  Many witnesses made multiple statements. I believe in many cases what the witnesses said in later statements, particularly in Feb. and March, 1964 are not that reliable due to changed statements, alterations, and coercion.

Witness testimony had a tendency to evolve toward the LGT concept.  Bonnie Ray Williams, a star Warren Commission witness, testimony will serve as a good example of what I am talking about.  Overtime, his testimony is filled with inconsistencies and changed testimony.  Consider the following:

Dallas Sheriffs Statement November 22, 1963- He said when he arrived on the 5th floor with Harold Norman and James Jarmen they went to the windows.  He said he saw the President’s vehicle turn from Main onto Houston Street.  He heard two shots that sounded if they came from directly above him.  He did glance upward, but saw no one.  He said they (Norman and Jarman) did not realize the president had been shot.

FBI report November 23, 1963- In this interview Williams states that he went to the 6th floor and stayed a short time about 3 minutes.  He then went to join two other men on the 5th floor.  Williams states he and the others were at the middle windows of the 5th floor south side.

FBI report January 8, 1964- Williams says he was on the 6th floor when he heard Jarman and Norman on the 5th floor.  He said he joined them on the 5th floor at about 12:05.  And, around 12;30 they watched the parade.

FBI report March 19, 1964- Bonnie Ray’s testimony in March, 1964 had changed from this November, 1963 testimony.  He stated that he was located at the center windows, which repeats what he said in his November 23, FBI statement, on the south side of the 5th floor.   The shots came from directly above him.  This means the shooter fired from the center of the building and not the sniper’s nest.  He further stated that as the presidential motorcade passed by the building on Elm Street he heard 3 shots. He glanced upward and saw nothing.  He said he did not know the president had been shot.

The words “passed by the building on Elm Street” could be taken to mean that the shots were heard when the presidential vehicle was in front of the TSBD passing by.  Alternatively, the words could mean after the vehicle passed the TSBD.  Often times this kind of statement is changed by adding “Just” to the “passed by”.

The question here is this testimony coaching for his upcoming Warren Commission testimony?

Warren Commission testimony (March 19, 1964?)- Bonnie Ray Williams testified that Oswald was a loner and did not speak to anyone.  He said that Oswald would read the paper and laugh to himself.  Others testified to this kind of behavior involving Oswald.  (Was this true or simply painting Oswald as a demented loner?)

Williams said he thought everyone in his crowd, 6th floor floor layers, was going to watch the parade from the 6th floor.  They didn’t show up so he ate lunch at the 3rd or 4th set of windows facing Elm St.  He finished his lunch by 12:20 and went in search of his co-workers.  He joined them on the 5th floor.  If he was at the 3rd or 4th set of windows on the 6th floor then he should have seen the people there that were mentioned by other witnesses.  Chicken bones and a sack tie him to that spot at that time.

He says Harold Norman was at the first window and he was at the second window and Junior Jarmen was two or 3 windows over.  He said he saw the motorcade turn on to Houston from Main St.  The presidential vehicle turned on Elm St. and drove past his window.  The president was brushing back his hair when he heard the first shot.  Then there were two more shots fired.  They were close together.  

 Williams said “— I really did not pay any attention to it, because I did not know what was happening. The second shot, it sounded it even shook the building, the side we were on like it was right in the building, the second and third shot.”  Williams agreed with Harold Norman that the shots came from above.  He said he did not hear shells hitting the floor or the action of the bolt being moved.  Only Harold Norman heard these things.  He said he thought Junior Jarman didn’t say he heard shots above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To all:

From discussion on the Towner film I recall reading on the Internet a few years back, attention was drawn to the mud smear on the left rear tire (Jackie's side) of JFK's parade car that is visible in Hugh Betzner's 2nd photo (the one that shows JFK's car turning in front of the Towner family on Elm Street with the TSBD in the background plus the Towner family watching the car make its turn). It was pointed out that the large tire smear (looks to take up almost an entire 1/2 circumference of the tire) does not appear to be rotating in the Towner film, nor is the mud smear seen at all.

Also discussed: the difference between the 'Towner film crowd' & the 'Martin film crowd'; described as 'standing zombies' in Towner vs. an 'active, moving around, waving crowd' in Martin's film.

Attention was directed to the (then) recent interviews of Pierce Allman, in which Pierce states JFK & Jackie were both waving at the crowd at the mouth of the reflecting pool, an action not seen in the Towner, Martin, Bell or Zapruder films.

As I recall, Life Magazine was the first to publicize frames from the Towner film in a 1967 Life magazine edition. Frames from the Towner, Dorman Hughes & Paschall  films plus Wilma Bond slides all appeared in the same magazine issue for the first time in 1967, IIRC. Life's own Josiah Thompson would publicize select frames of these visuals in his blockbuster book, Six Seconds In Dallas (also published in 1967). Thompson is a well known defender of Zapruder film authenticity & is considered by many as one of the 'founding fathers' of CT thinking. Thompson's book argued the case of 3 assassins murdering JFK in a well orchestrated crossfire.

The discussions I read included comments of splices (or scene 'cut outs') in the Hughes, Dorman, Bell, Paschall & Towner films & the appearance of the application of black artist's paint applied to glass cells overlaid on film frames & re-photographed via an optical printer to disguise something in a particular scene(s) of a visual. All of the Life magazine visuals discussed (Towner, Hughes, Bond, Dorman, Paschall & Zapruder) were identified in the discussions as suspected alteration victims. In the case of the Hughes film, this would appear to indicate that the person who was in the sniper's nest was 'blacked out' by someone associated with Life magazine, leaving a black blob that appears to move around in that window. Ditto for the other visuals the magazine tracked down, handled & published visuals from; they all were suspected of being altered one way or another by Life associates in the online discussions.

That's all I can remember about those discussions at the moment. The late Gary Mack was feverishly denying the existence of splices in the Towner film, as I remember. Mack claimed film' strengtheners' resembling splices were what analysts were seeing in the Towner film. Mack's presence in the discussions suggests to me that I read them at the old, original Lancer Forum that was subsequently hacked online & destroyed.

Sincerely,

Brad Milch

Edited by Brad Milch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People keep saying in these posts that not everything is a conspiracy.  In the visual record I'm not finding much of anything that has not been tainted by photo editors.  Particularly, the information that was presented to the public early on during the first week or so after the assassination.  I think the following are tainted by photo editors:

Altgens 6

Mary Moorman's Polaroid

Zapruper Film 

And, other films that show pretty much what Zapruder shows

So, with that said how do you talk about how the assassination occurred without referring to one of these?  Would these be allowed in court after their flaws were pointed out?

What conspiracy theory could be derive without these?  Can we accept the parts we like and reject other parts?  Here is an example. 

The Zapruder film is altered from Z frame 1 onward.  Take Jack White's notion that Altgens 5 is authentic and Zapruder not.  This was based on two different sets of people that are  mutually exclusive in the Elm St. crosswalk.  If we look at the tires in Altgens 5 we know there was alteration.  So, how can we accept White's idea knowing both are false.

If we reject what I call the Zapruder Paradigm (visual information listed above that limits what we can talk about), then how do we evolve a theory to too account for the Parkland Hosiptal head wound description of President Kennedy.

Speaking of which, I believe President Kennedy was dead with seconds of being shot in the head.  He was DOA at Parkland.  You simply cannot survive long with that kind of wound removing the amount of cerebral and cerebellar tissue that it did.  I've always wondered why the Parkland doctors went through the charade of using live saving techniques on a dead body.  My best answer was that they had to show that they tried to save President Kennedy.  David Lifton has now clarified what he had been hinting at for years.  Their was evil intent on the part of some Parkland doctors requiring that Kennedy remain "alive" so that the evil intent of body alteration could be performed.

I'm not certain I like either answer. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that's correct.  Not everything is a conspiracy.  I think a lot of people on this forum think that everything was oh, so very easy to just wave a wand over the Towner film, and the Z film, and other visual evidence and presto!  Everything matches up perfectly, black blobs were painted in, people were removed from frames, and so on.

Yes, there's a jump in the Towner film.  There are some frames missing. So what?  It proves nothing and from all indications of what can be seen in the Towner film, it's showing no conspiracy in it.

No shots were fired until right after Kennedy appears from behind the freeway sign.  Think about it - we need to give the planners credit for planning this out.  They weren't going to just start firing at random, way up when the car first turned onto Elm.

They *had* to start firing at around Z225 because if they didn't - if they started much earlier - it would have totally destroyed the ruse that the lone gunman was firing from the 6th floor all by himself.  They also knew that no shots could be fired from that window earlier than that because of the oak tree blocking the view.

Do you really think they didn't think of all of this?  It's NOT like they were thinking, "OK, well, we'll set up the snipers nest up there, throw some bullet shells down, stick a rifle between some boxes...but oh, yeah, let's start firing right when the car turns onto Elm.  That will look real good because if we do that then the shooters down in front of the car will have to start firing real early too."

I mean, really?  You have to make things logical, think like the planners did, instead of assuming Kennedy is hit right as the car turns, just because he waved and his hand goes from an open one into  a ball.  I mean, let's start thinking a little more logically and plausibly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris, unless I'm overlooking it, Andrej has not posted on this thread so why are you addressing your reply to him.

Also, a serious question and not to stir things up with you.  I've been developing training for over 20 years now.  When you present something, you have to list things for people 1-2-3, in order for them to get it.

Your post here is you say you'll fill someone in later and then you show a 5-second clip of the Z film.  Do you not realize - and again I can't see how your mind works here - that by doing this you leave a troubling and confusing precedent on EF? How can you ever expect a new person visiting here, yet alone a serious researcher, to EVER understand where it is you're going with your posts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×