Craig Lamson Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Just because JFK is aligned with the corner of the TSBD after the splice, probably has nothing to do with film syncing. Probably not.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Based on my own rather careful study of the Towner film the splice is of a probably typical film development method of excising over-exposed photos. There is a sharp rise of the intensity of reflected sunlight off the chrome before the excised frame and a sharp drop after with the immediately pre and post frames indicating a peak at the ( or rather likely peaking just before or after the start of the exposure of the missing frame ) missing frame. I think that's the simplest explanation and it's good enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 John, http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/TOWNER3.gif Below is an inquiry from Bill Miller some time ago: Information I requested from Gary Mack: In reply to your questions, the camera original Towner film has one splice about 2/3 of the way through the limo turn onto Elm Street. Since the film was never examined by government investigators, the splice was first noticed by Robert Groden, who served as a consultant to the HSCA photo panel in 1978. From what Tina and Jim Towner told me over the years, they had no knowledge of how or when that splice was made. What is known is that the film was developed for them by The Dallas Morning News within a few days of the assassination; available records suggest the film was never seen by investigators until the HSCA. The only other time the film was out of the Towner’s possession was when LIFE magazine borrowed it from them in 1967 for publication in their November issue about Kennedy assassination photographers. Chain of possession? Why this camera has to run at 23fps for it to sync with the other films (according to Myers). Reflected sunlight completely overexposed approx 8 frames? Why not just leave them in? WC position 'A' - station 'C" shenanigans. Roy Truly (on the North side of Elm in front of the TSBD) describing in detail, the limo almost running into the Elm St extension. Z film with no limo turn. No film completely covers the full limo turn from Houston onto Elm. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Navin Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 From a probability standpoint -- statistically -- how likely is it that of all the films that could show the limo turn, none of them do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 I wonder if that wide turn onto Elm has something to do with the splice in the Towner film? Chris I have always thought that what you just said is the case with the Towner film Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 From a probability standpoint -- statistically -- how likely is it that of all the films that could show the limo turn, none of them do? Perfect point John! I have been saying that for years! Even the Dorman film is spliced right before the limo turn I did a study on it a year or so ago that Gary Mack went ballastic over saying I was seeing things Let me try and dig it up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Chris, there was only one frame excised from the version I studied. If you are looking at a version with 8 frames excised they are excised for some other reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Based on my own rather careful study of the Towner film the splice is of a probably typical film development method of excising over-exposed photos. There is a sharp rise of the intensity of reflected sunlight off the chrome before the excised frame and a sharp drop after with the immediately pre and post frames indicating a peak at the ( or rather likely peaking just before or after the start of the exposure of the missing frame ) missing frame. I think that's the simplest explanation and it's good enough for me. good enough for you, okay.... I prefer to see documentation that **ANY** film processor of the day REMOVED overexposed frames... how and when would they do that. Especially when the film process is automated... C'mon John you can do better than that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 (edited) Chris, there was only one frame excised from the version I studied. If you are looking at a version with 8 frames excised they are excised for some other reason. Let's see...I wonder what that "other reason" could possibly be? I think all of the "available reasons" have already been USED UP to attempt to justify why the turn is missing from all of the films! Perhaps you can enlighten us, John, about what "other reason" caused ALL OF THE FILMS' failure to capture the turn onto Elm? Or, if you prefer, at least come up with a "new" reason why it happened to this particular film. I don't mind if you simply "guess" what might have happened. That's what Groden, et al, have already been doing for decades. They've been offering nothing more than supposition as to why all of the films have been "accidentally spliced" or otherwise damaged--at the SAME point(s) in the motorcade. It is fascinating. So, John--why do you think 8 frames or even 1 frame were/was excised from the film? Oh, wait--I forgot--that film was also in Life's hands, was it not? Edited June 25, 2011 by Greg Burnham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Chris, there was only one frame excised from the version I studied. If you are looking at a version with 8 frames excised they are excised for some other reason. Now you have gone and done it John, you have the "alterationists" foaming at the mouth..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Chris, there was only one frame excised from the version I studied. If you are looking at a version with 8 frames excised they are excised for some other reason. John, The version you have with one frame missing, where in the film does that occur? Can you supply a copy of it? chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 Chris, there was only one frame excised from the version I studied. If you are looking at a version with 8 frames excised they are excised for some other reason. Let's see...I wonder what that "other reason" could possibly be? I think all of the "available reasons" have already been USED UP to attempt to justify why the turn is missing from all of the films! Perhaps you can enlighten us, John, about what "other reason" caused ALL OF THE FILMS' failure to capture the turn onto Elm? Or, if you prefer, at least come up with a "new" reason why it happened to this particular film. I don't mind if you simply "guess" what might have happened. That's what Groden, et al, have already been doing for decades. They've been offering nothing more than supposition as to why all of the films have been "accidentally spliced" or otherwise damaged--at the SAME point(s) in the motorcade. It is fascinating. So, John--why do you think 8 frames or even 1 frame were/was excised from the film? Oh, wait--I forgot--that film was also in Life's hands, was it not? Hi Greg, Nice to see you on this thread again after your extended absence. Now that you are back perhaps you'd be willing to tell us the circumstances in which you saw the "other" film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 Greg, I have already suggested a reason for one frame being excised in the version I studied. Chris, the farme is missing about there but the 5 meg odd gif with bacground I don't have on hand. (It's somwhere in a backup). Perhaps someone has a copy. I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 Chris, there was only one frame excised from the version I studied. If you are looking at a version with 8 frames excised they are excised for some other reason. Let's see...I wonder what that "other reason" could possibly be? I think all of the "available reasons" have already been USED UP to attempt to justify why the turn is missing from all of the films! Perhaps you can enlighten us, John, about what "other reason" caused ALL OF THE FILMS' failure to capture the turn onto Elm? Or, if you prefer, at least come up with a "new" reason why it happened to this particular film. I don't mind if you simply "guess" what might have happened. That's what Groden, et al, have already been doing for decades. They've been offering nothing more than supposition as to why all of the films have been "accidentally spliced" or otherwise damaged--at the SAME point(s) in the motorcade. It is fascinating. So, John--why do you think 8 frames or even 1 frame were/was excised from the film? Oh, wait--I forgot--that film was also in Life's hands, was it not? Hi Greg, Nice to see you on this thread again after your extended absence. Now that you are back perhaps you'd be willing to tell us the circumstances in which you saw the "other" film. Len, I am unable to discuss the circumstances at this time. I accept the fact that some, if not many, will find it necessary to dismiss my account of it based on that inability. If you wish to dismiss it for that reason, I don't fault you. However, asking me over and over again is not helpful as that will not change this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 (edited) Chris, there was only one frame excised from the version I studied. If you are looking at a version with 8 frames excised they are excised for some other reason. Now you have gone and done it John, you have the "alterationists" foaming at the mouth..... relax Clyde.... after all we've been at this a wee-bit longer than you.... perhaps you can tell us when automated film processing companies ala KODAK find the time to remove overexposed double 8mm film frames, after the film has been split and both A&B sides assembled end to end. Documentation and a cite might help... I'm sure Roland Zavada will give you a response, he'd know or know a source! You too can advance the non-film alteration theory.... Edited June 26, 2011 by David G. Healy 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