Chris Davidson

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

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. 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

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 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

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

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. Or maybe someone never stopped filming, thank you David Healy. But, I'm just a conspiracy theorist and these are all coincidences. chris

Speaking from personal experience, when I filmed from up on the pedestal with my B/H 414 camera, after stopping and then restarting, I NEVER had an instance of blurred/movement frames on start up. I did this at least 15 times. Something to ponder. People usually set their target first before they push down the button to start filming. Once they push that button, in this case (18 FPS), good luck with any movement within 3/18 of a second. Highly unlikely. Just take a look at the initial 3 frames without the limo for comparison. chris

Thought this next one might give a little insight into possible frame enlargement manipulation. If you will notice the red arrows point to WC photos from frame 166/185. Why would the WC present 2 different SIZED photos for these frames? By the way, 161 is the same size as 166. Reminds me of the MPI stretched frames. In order to size 185 to fit 166, I had to enlarge it to 107%. The same sized frames have the blue alignment marks in it. The original frames have none. To make it easier for the size difference, put your mouse cursor on the sprocket hole edge as it plays back and forth. chris

Alan, 2 frames looping. Hat stabilized chris

Chris, I've looked at this over the years -- mostly as a result of trying to appreciate what Tom's research has shown. I think it is more than safe to say that there are serious issues with the WC re-enactment figures. I'd go so far as to call them fatally flawed. Your graphic adds additional reinforcement to what Tom has been saying for a while now. Good catch! Thanks Frank, I'm glad you feel this supports what Tom has been showing us for a long time. I think this is "child's play" for him. He's someone who "plain and simple" is just smarter than most. Tom, Your last few posts are PRICELESS. I'm not sure if I will continue with the final frames, as you have "driven the final nail in the coffin". Most appreciative, chris P.S. Wondering if this is worth pursuing.

Frank, I think your close, according to Gary Mack. Here is his email response to my post: 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. Don't quit your day job, Chris. Gary Gary needs to take a look at the W/C documents supplied for frame 161/166. (Photo Provided) He should notice that according to these documents, someone (I believe the SAME FBI that used the Z, Nix and Muchmore films) determined the limo traveled a distance of .9 ft between frames 161 and 166. Sounds to me like all 3 films used fuzzy math. So which is correct Gary? The film or the WC? If the film is correct, the WHOLE reenactment figures are down the toilet. Just as Tom Purvis has shown us. If the WC is correct, the film is phony. I vote for #3. Reenactment and the film are both phony. Pertaining to photo interpretation. Well, yes photos can be interpreted, but the MATH NEVER LIES. chris

A little help if needed. The chart has the limo traveling less than a foot from frames 161-166. The animation shows the distance traveled for these frames. What do you think? chris

Thanks Tom. Here are the next comparisons. Once again, the animation is a reflection of the photos provided. Sorry about the size, but had to keep it reasonable. Frame 185 is labeled, so after that point, concentrate on the sprocket hole (jumps) movement. Then refer back to Tom's chart for these frames. chris

Hi Vince, I attended a Bugliosi book promotion in San Diego. I even approached him with the document supplied here. CE 875 Ask him if he remember's. He looked at it, and wanted to know where I got it from. I told him on-line at History-Matters.com. That it was a W/C document. It's a website with the entire electronic version of the Warren Commission publication. Once I told him it came from a website, he then proceeded to try and belittle me in front of the mostly naive audience. In other words, gave the audience the impression that this was a document created by someone with zero value. Asked him if he knew who Robert West was. He didn't. Do you? Bugliosi might have written a huge book, with a lot of information in it, but how pertinent is it. Take a look at the document, and when you figure out that West was the LAND SURVEYOR used in the W/C fiasco, might want to ask yourself why it was determined the last shot which struck Kennedy in the head was down near Altgen's, not at 313. But I'm sure he covered this in his book, right? chris

Comparison of frames 135-154 and 157-160. Animation is of the same frames. I stop it at 157 with a 2 second delay between the last 4 frames so you can watch the sprocket hole movement. Frame 157 splice Frame 158 Blur Frame 159 Blur Frame 160 Transition for the next set of frames until we reach 185. Keep an eye on Tom's chart. chris

I was wrong. That isn't Betzner's shadow in his own photograph. One last question: The light we see at the bottom of Mrs.Towner's legs in Dorman, because her feet are spread apart, where is it in Betzner? chris

Jack, Take a look and let me know. In Dorman, Betzner is standing behind the Towner's, but his LOS is RRman. PROBLEM Betzner's shadow appears in his own photograph. It has to, it's the only one in Dorman that's near the Towner's, but doesn't reach the street. Betzner's photo shows his own shadow to the LEFT of the Towners. PROBLEM Dorman shows Betzner's shadow to the RIGHT of the Towners. PROBLEM The only other shadow that comes close to Betzner's is the girl who comes running directly behind him. But her shadow doesn't extend out as far. The end of the animation shows Betzner finished shooting his photo. His LOS is still RRman. chris

Chris...these frames are notable because they do not show TINA TOWNER FILMING. Please do a comparison with the Tina Towner film. Check the locations of the two motorcycles in relation to Zapruder, and tell us which Z frames represent Tina frames. By finding line of sight between motorcycles and JFK in Towner film and comparing Z and T, you will see that Tina HAS TO BE IN ZAPRUDER. I have done this in the past, but I want to see your take on it. Thanks. Jack Jack, Not sure I understand your request using the Towner film. Her film ends before we see the Z pedestal. I did this if it helps. 1. Tina Towner shows her filming position as the limo passed by. 2. Footage from the 6th floor with superimposed Dorman composited frames for Towner's approx. location, while she was filming the limo. 3. Frame from my movie, aligned with a Zframe, then cloned the corner people from Z into mine. The red arrows point to the man in the blue conductors uniform. chris

And for those that are under the impression that Groden's uncut copy is unaltered, well Linda Willis has the same problem with body separation in that version also. So it would appear that his is a copy from a version that had undergone alteration before he obtained it. chris

Since I couldn't find my animation topic, but this is part of the Zfilm revisited, here's another splendid display by the animator's. Little Linda Willis ran so quickly to catch the limo, she um um um. Well, you can decide what happens to her body. (Red Arrow) It's a shame anyone believes this film is unaltered. chris P.S. Another sign of cell frame animation would be the (straight leg movement) sync of the 2 women in front of Linda Willis.

To give those interested something of a comparison tool, for the previous sprocket hole distance comparisons, here is 10 frames from my movie. The truck went through a green light at the top of Main/Elm and is probably hitting at least 35 miles mph at this point. Obviously, viewing the distance between the sprocket holes shows I was panning a car traveling much faster than the limo. Now equate that to the sprocket hole difference between (157-160) and (160-169). Hopefully, the picture is getting clearer. chris

Jack Take a look at the "Vehicle Speed Data Chart". (Supplied) Compare the top/bottom red squares. Frame difference between them is 7 total. Total distance traveled is the SAME. Keep that in mind when looking at my previous sprocket hole comparison photo. If I take 7 frames away between (160-169) the limo would still start and stop at the same spot. What changes is the speed of the limo. Less frames to go the same distance. Then take a look at (157-160) primarily the distance between the sprocket hole frames and compare that to (160-169). 157-160 is not indicative of someone panning at the same rate as 160-169. It is however, what we see on the "Vehicle Speed Data Chart" supplied by Tom. Less frames but same distance traveled chris

And now the movies.

I thought it might be easier for others to grasp, if I give a visual comparison of what was done to the film around the splice and thereafter. The frame distance traveled is the same from (157-160) as it is from (160-169), aligned the outside frame edges. What does that do to a film, well take a look at the next post for a movie comparison. Hint!! A little speed difference. Tom, I still have the "Vehicle Speed Chart" right by my side. chris

About your points #1 and #2 ... There are several causes for motion blur. One is caused by the camera being moved and the other is from the objects seen within an image being in motion. The speed of the object - the angle at which it is seen during the jiggle are a couple of causes for such blurring. The cops shoulder and head - the double white spot in the area of the hood ornament on the Queen Mary - a man's hat changing shape - are just a few of the occurrences that take place when the image blurs. These occurrences are seen throughout the films of JFK as he rode from Love Field to the Plaza. This may not sound as interesting as pretending that something sinister was afoot that caused an image to blur, but its reality IMO. On the other hand, blurring can also be used to hide movement/size manipulations. But for this example, let's take frame 154 and 161 and take the blurring variable out of it. While I'm at it, I'll use some non MPI frames so we don't have to worry about the sham job they did either. So now we have two frames that are 7 frames apart. If something is coming towards/closer to the filmer, that object tends to enlarge. If stationary objects remain in the SAME location, let's say people in the FOREGROUND, they should remain the same size. Or let me guess, Zapruder had a setting on his camera for foreground zoom only. Time to test that theory. I believe we have another problem around the splice frames. Looks as if the foreground people (primarily on the left) are different sizes and all within 7/18 of a second. Maybe they all jumped backwards toward the camera at once. I believe the correct frame would look more like the animation with the red inset borders. ( Percentages provided for proper fit) MORE THAN LIKELY, SOME PARTS OF THE FILM HAVE BEEN RESIZED. Why would they do it: Well, I think Tom has provided that bit of information in his previous post. Any mathematicians in the house. I'll keep digging, but the dirt is coming out quickly. BTW, take a look at the left side background (red border animation) as it too does not fit, while the rest of the composite does. chris

Thanks Tom, What you have just supplied, as you have many times before, is invaluable. The "Altered Evidence" syncs nicely with the film splice area and the "before/after limo sync" In fact, when I was doing the 6 frame comparison of the before/after limo sync (frames 100-106 with 160-165 I believe) and this latest splice work, my tunnel vision hadn't allowed me to connect your information to it. Obviously you did. Either this is the biggest coincidence that will ever occur in my life, or we are at one very important core of the film alteration. imo Still trying to break down the exact amount of frames, if possible with what is available. much appreciated, chris