Towner vs. Zapruder

[Bill Miller]

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?

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

[Chris Davidson]

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

Edited June 3, 2008 by Chris Davidson

[Bill Miller]

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.

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

[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

[Bill Miller]

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

[Jack White]

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

[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

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

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

[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

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

Thanks Jack,

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

chris

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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

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.

[Jack White]

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

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

[Bill Miller]

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

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

[David G. Healy]

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

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

[Bill Miller]

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"

[Jack White]

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

[David G. Healy]

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