The OTHER film.

[Bill Miller]

dgh01: nice dance, pal. How do you know that splice covers 2 frames? And, you haven't addressed the question, where'd the "run up on the curb" come from?

David, all one needs to do is measure the forward advance of the car between each frame. If the forward advance is "X" between each frame before the splice and then the limo jumps forward "2X", then two frames are missing. If the car jumped forward 3X, then it would suggest that three frames were missing. The important part isn't whether the film is missing 2 or three frames ... but rather that two at least two other films captured the missing moments from Towners film and the car remained in the center lane. Now I hope you were able to follow that simple process of deduction.

dgh01: imagine that, just so happens to cover 2 'unverified' frames -- that's a red flag... but don't let me hold up your parade here

David, it must be rough not knowing the JFK case and having dyslexia on top of everything else. I never implied that the Doorman film covered the missing frames from Towner's film, but rather that it showed the limo halfway through its turn and the car is turning into the center lane. Unless you think a tie rod broke sending the limo out of control and causing it to run towards the curb, despite there being no evidence of such an event, then who in their right mind would think the limo did anything other than remaining in the center lane when ading the Bell and Martin films to the equation.

dgh01: well first you've got to assure all the lurkers and me, Towner is missing only 2 frames, far as I'm concerned it could be 40 frames -- read my words "why does every film that covers that corner have a splice, cut, camera stop down during sames footage?

If my memory serves me correctly ... there are two splices in the Towner film with the splice of importance to this discussion being the splice during the limo turn as the car passes in front of the TSBD doorway from Tina's angle. As I stated above ... measure the forward advance of the limo with each frame prior to the splice and make a grid. Next apply the position of the car against the background after the splice and see how many increments it went forward in one frame and this should tell you how many frames are missing. As I stated before however, when other films that are not spliced have captured the time frame where Towner's film is missing frames, then Towner's mising frames become a moot point except for those paranoid schizophrenics that will try to make a case for concern no matter what the evidence shows to the contrary.

dgh01: I believe the point here is the 'limo ran up on the curb' -- you're quote, where did that come from, who stated it and when? Pretty simple question for any DP film/photo researcher

The statement you are inquiring about came up on the looney forum back around the year 2000. It's been too long for me to recall who all claimed to observe the incident in their "other film" version, but never-the-less it was said. I cannot be 100% sure, but it too may have been Scott Myers who made the statement. The person's name wasn't what caught my attention as much as the fact that it was just another variance in the alleged "other film" witnesses descriptions that meant to me that at least some of these individuals were not talking about the same film even though they were all being added to the support list as seeing the "other film".

dgh01: rofl! gheesh --- that response was a waste of bandwidth...

I wouldn't think that mentioning the descrepencies in the alleged "other film" witnesses observations is a waste of time, but even if it was ... do you think that you should be the only one who should be allowed to waste bandwidth on this forum. I invite anyone to go back into the archives and pool all your responses together to see just what percent of them dealt with anything specific that was being said and see how it quantifies as 'wasted bandwidth'.

dgh01: not just name guy. Which opens up all sorts of avenues and questions

And none of them pertaining to the evidence before us.

Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

'Bill Miller'

[...]

dgh01: I believe the point here is the 'limo ran up on the curb' -- you're quote, where did that come from, who stated it and when? Pretty simple question for any DP film/photo researcher

The statement you are inquiring about came up on the looney forum back around the year 2000. It's been too long for me to recall who all claimed to observe the incident in their "other film" version, but never-the-less it was said. I cannot be 100% sure, but it too may have been Scott Myers who made the statement. The person's name wasn't what caught my attention as much as the fact that it was just another variance in the alleged "other film" witnesses descriptions that meant to me that at least some of these individuals were not talking about the same film even though they were all being added to the support list as seeing the "other film"

dgh02: thats the problem with your stuff Bill, you can't validate anything; you can't be sure; somebody else told you -- how in the hell are we to believe you about anything....? You're out there champ, but there's hope

dgh01: rofl! gheesh --- that response was a waste of bandwidth...

I wouldn't think that mentioning the descrepencies in the alleged "other film" witnesses observations is a waste of time, but even if it was ... do you think that you should be the only one who should be allowed to waste bandwidth on this forum. I invite anyone to go back into the archives and pool all your responses together to see just what percent of them dealt with anything specific that was being said and see how it quantifies as 'wasted bandwidth'.

dgh02: roflmao! 20,000 internet posts? Hell, have your employer save us the trouble -- Have him do it!

Bill, if you haven't seen the "other" film, how do YOU know? Nothing esoteric about that, is there? Hell I haven't seen it, I've no comment whether its true or not...

dgh01: not just name guy. Which opens up all sorts of avenues and questions

And none of them pertaining to the evidence before us.

dgh02: tsk-tsk you're a hopin'....

dh

Bill Miller

Edited May 18, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Bernice Moore]

Quote: Bill Miller: "David, as someone who's research stops with paranoia, you obviously haven't cross referenced the Bell and Martin films ... as well as the full sprocket Doorman film against Towner's film. The splice that you speak of in Towner's film covers possibly two frames ... you aren't suggesting that the limo ran over the curb and got back on track in 2/18s of a second are you?

Next, the Doorman full frame film shows the limo in the center lane halfway through its turn. The Bell and Martin films are not spliced and they pick up the limo during the time Towner's film is missing its two frames and the limo is seen in the middle of the street. So if we can get past the unecessary paranoid assertions and actually compare the evidence ... the limo made a correct turn and remained in the center lane the entire time. If the "other film" shows something different, then it is a fabricated film."

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=62737

**********************

Roy Sansom Truly

Superintendent "Texas School Book Depository"

Mr. TRULY. All right.

We saw the motorcycle escort come off of Main and turn onto Houston Street.

Mr. BELIN. Main would be down here, and it would be coming off Houston, heading towards the building?

Mr. TRULY. Headed towards the building.

Mr. BELIN. All right.

Mr. TRULY. And it went on down this way. And immediately after--

Mr. BELIN. By "this way" you mean the street marked Parkway?

Mr. TRULY. I assume that is the underpass that you have marked Parkway.

Mr. BELIN. The street leading to the expressway, that diagonal street?

Mr. TRULY. That is right.

And the President's car following close behind came along at an average speed of 10 or 15 miles an hour. It wasn't that much, because they were getting ready to turn. And the driver of the Presidential car swung out too far to the right, and he came almost within an inch of running into this little abutment here, between Elm and the Parkway. And he slowed down perceptibly and pulled back to the left to get over into the middle lane of the parkway. Not being familiar with the street, he came too far out this way when he made his turn.

Mr. BELIN. He came too far to the north before he made his curve, and as he curved--as he made his left turn from Houston onto the street leading to the expressway, he almost hit this north curb?

Mr. TRULY. That is right. Just before he got to it, he had to almost stop, to pull over to the left.

If he had maintained his speed, he would probably have hit this little section here.

Mr. BELIN. All right.

Now, what is your best estimate of the speed as he started to go down the street here marked Parkway?

Mr. TRULY. He picked up a little speed along here, and then seemed to have fallen back into line, and I would say 10 or 12 miles an hour in this area.

Mr. BELIN. All right.

Then what did you see happen?

Mr. TRULY. I heard an explosion, which I thought was a toy cannon or a loud firecracker from west of the building. Nothing happened at this first explosion. Everything was frozen. And immediately after two more explosions, which I realized that I thought was a gun, a rifle of some kind.

The President's--I saw the President's car swerve to the left and stop somewheres down in this area. It is misleading here. And that is the last I saw of his ear, because this crowd, when the third shot rang out--there was a large crowd all along this abutment here, this little wall, and there was some around us in front--they began screaming and falling to the ground. And the people in front of myself and Mr. Campbell surged back, either in terror or panic. They must have seen this thing. I became separated from Mr. Campbell. They just practically bore me back to the first step on the entrance of our building.

Mr. BELIN. When you saw the President's car seem to stop, how long did it appear to stop?

Mr. TRULY. It would be hard to say over a second or two or something like that. I didn't see I just saw it stop. I don't know. I didn't see it start up.

Mr. BELIN. Then you stopped looking at it, or you were distracted by something else?

Mr. TRULY. Yes. The crowd in front of me kind of congealed around me and bore me back through weight of numbers, and I lost sight of it.

I think there were a lot of people trying to get out of the way of something. They didn't know what.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/truly1.htm

From page 2..

David...I am glad you mentioned the WIDE TURN. It reminded of this.

Maybe "Miller" can explain what Zapruder frame the FBI used for

their "reconstruction" CE 886. It was the first in a series of exhibits

MATCHING ZAPRUDER FRAMES.

Jack

B.

Edited May 18, 2006 by Bernice Moore

[Bill Miller]

dgh02: thats the problem with your stuff Bill, you can't validate anything; you can't be sure; somebody else told you -- how in the hell are we to believe you about anything....? You're out there champ, but there's hope

I was on the looney forum and participated in those debates ... no one had to tell me anything ... and don't worry about believing me, there were plenty of people who were listening and participating in those discussions. How about you ... I seem to recall that your big mouth was running all the time back then in those threads ... maybe you can tell us who said it?

Bill

Edited May 18, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Jack White]

David...I am glad you mentioned the WIDE TURN. It reminded of this.

Maybe "Miller" can explain what Zapruder frame the FBI used for

their "reconstruction" CE 886. It was the first in a series of exhibits

MATCHING ZAPRUDER FRAMES.

Jack

Jack and DGH:

If the films omit the wide turn, what does that suggest?

In other words, what is the significance of the missing film and / or wide turn?

The significance is that IT WAS REMOVED FROM THE FILM...THEREFORE

THE FILM IS NOT GENUINE. Since the wide turn was eliminated, we are

left to wonder what else was eliminated.

Jack

[Thomas H. Purvis]

David...I am glad you mentioned the WIDE TURN. It reminded of this.

Maybe "Miller" can explain what Zapruder frame the FBI used for

their "reconstruction" CE 886. It was the first in a series of exhibits

MATCHING ZAPRUDER FRAMES.

Jack

Jack and DGH:

If the films omit the wide turn, what does that suggest?

In other words, what is the significance of the missing film and / or wide turn?

The significance is that IT WAS REMOVED FROM THE FILM...THEREFORE

THE FILM IS NOT GENUINE. Since the wide turn was eliminated, we are

left to wonder what else was eliminated.

Jack

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Governor CONNALLY. As we looked at them this morning, and as you related the numbers to me, it appeared to me that I was hit in the range between 130 or 131, I don't remember precisely, up to 134, in that bracket.

Mr. SPECTER. May I suggest to you that it was 231?

Governor CONNALLY. Well, 231 and 234, then.

Mr. SPECTER. The series under our numbering system starts with a higher number when the car comes around the turn, so when you come out of the sign, which was----

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jack;

There were most certainly mistakes made, as well as those mistakes which were "almost made"!

[Bill Miller]

The significance is that IT WAS REMOVED FROM THE FILM...THEREFORE

THE FILM IS NOT GENUINE. Since the wide turn was eliminated, we are

left to wonder what else was eliminated.

Jack

Jack, let's keep it real here. As was stated in another post .... the time period when Towner's film is missing frames was captured by Martin and Bell, so nothing about that turn was missed. In fact, C~roft's photo showing the limo immediately coming out of the turn shows us that everything is fine inside the lkimo so far. Nothing out of the unordinary occurred when the limo rounded the corner onto Elm Street, no shots were fired, no assassins ran up to the car, no one even so much had thrown a tomato, thus it is irrational thinking on your part IMO to assume that the Zfilm is altered because Zapruder didn't capture the limo turn.

[David G. Healy]

Bill Miller wrote"

dgh02: thats the problem with your stuff Bill, you can't validate anything; you can't be sure; somebody else told you -- how in the hell are we to believe you about anything....? You're out there champ, but there's hope

I was on the looney forum and participated in those debates ... no one had to tell me anything ... and don't worry about believing me, there were plenty of people who were listening and participating in those discussions. How about you ... I seem to recall that your big mouth was running all the time back then in those threads ... maybe you can tell us who said it?

Bill

___________

dgh03:The best you have countering 'trouble negotiating' a turn onto Elm St? **eyewitness** WC testimony from Truly, is not good? lmao

mummmwah? me? nah, actually I didn't participate in many threads at all, my post count could of told you that...speaking of post count how many internet JFK related post you got going now, you gotta be approaching Dave Reitzes all time high what 25-30,000+? Keep at it, you'll get a handle on it!

Edited May 18, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Thomas H. Purvis]

David...I am glad you mentioned the WIDE TURN. It reminded of this.

Maybe "Miller" can explain what Zapruder frame the FBI used for

their "reconstruction" CE 886. It was the first in a series of exhibits

MATCHING ZAPRUDER FRAMES.

Jack

Jack;

Might I take the opportunity to "remind" you that the "next" WC Exhibit reportedly is for frame#161, which by the way is also somewhat untrue.

Since no survey work was done for Z-161, and the data is in fact for frame# Z-168 for which the data was surveyed in, and thereafter the survey data block on the WC/West Survey Plat was altered and changed from "168" to "161", then this may offer additional clues as to what much of this is in fact all about.

And, since an identical change took place for Z-171 which was also surveyed in and the WC Data thereafter changed to represent Z-166, then quite obviously these changes have something in common.

Especially when one takes a further look at the "Vehicle Speed Analysis" which I also once provided in relationship to this information.

Tom

P.S. There is also another reason for the Position "A" location, which is not that readily apparant.

Also:

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Since it was not practical to stop the projector when using the original of the Zapruder film, because of the possibility of damage to the film, Mr. Orth volunteered to prepare 35-mm. color slides directly from the original movie of all of the pertinent frames of the assassination which were determined to be frames 171 through 434.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, exactly where and how did we "back up to position "A"; and/or Z-166 or Z-168?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I numbered the frames on the Zapruder film beginning with No. 1 at the assassination portion of his

He did have on his film some photographs of a personal nature that we disregarded, and started at the first frame of his motion picture that was made there on Elm Street of the assassination.

Mr. SPECTER. And what was happening at the time of frame 1?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. At the time of frame 1, the police motorcycle lead portion of the parade is in view, and that goes for several frames. Then he stopped his camera, feeling that it might be some time before the Presidential car came into view. Then when the Presidential car rounded the corner and came into view, he started his camera again, and kept it running throughout the route down Elm Street until the car went out of sight on his right

Mr. SHANEYFELT. The first position we established that morning was frame 161.

Mr. SPECTER. Was there not a position established prior in sequence to frame 161, specifically that designated as position A?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That was actually established later. But the first one to be actually located was 161. And we went back later and positioned point A.

Mr. SPECTER. Well, let's start with the position which is the most easterly point on Elm Street, which I believe would be position A, would it not?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; in each of the positions that we established, we used, insofar as possible, the Zapruder pictures to establish the position, or we established it from the window, and made photographs from the position Mr. Zapruder was standing in.

Mr. SPECTER. This chart has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 886.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 886 for identification.)

Mr. SHANEYFELT. This shows the photograph that was made from the point where Zapruder was standing looking toward the car, and is a point that we have designated as position A because it is in a position that did not appear on the Zapruder film

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That one certainly went completely "over" my head.

It the car is in a position that did not appear on the film, exactly how was it that they knew that the car was in this position??????

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. SPECTER - Mr. Frazier, referring to Commission Exhibit No. 886, did you view through the sight that depicted in "photograph through rifle scope" on the positioning of the Presidential limousine or the car to simulate the limousine at position A?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; this would be the first position that an individual in that sixth floor window could sight at the car due to the interference of the window ledge of the building and the fact that the angle downward is limited by the partially lowered window.

Mr. SPECTER - I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 888 and ask you if you had the view depicted on the "photograph through the rifle scope" shown on that exhibit?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; this Exhibit No. 888 is frame 161, and is the position at which I had the car stopped just before the spot, indicating the entrance wound on the back of the President's stand-in, passed into the foliage of the tree.

Mr. SPECTER - I now hand you Exhibits Nos. 889, 890, and 891, and ask you if you had the view on each of those depicted in the "photograph through rifle scope"?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; Commission No. 889 represented by frame 166 is the adjusted position to account for the fact that the Presidential stand-in on May 24 was actually 10 inches higher in the air above the street than the President would have been in the Presidential limousine.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which ultimately places us back to the "New Math/Creative Accounting" method of the WC re-enactment, which ultimately leads us directly to the "Adjusted Position" and how Z-161 can become Z-166, and how Mr. West can be told that it is Z-168 and thus survey it in and make his survey data, only to have the WC alter this data on his Survey Chart/Data block in order that it corresponds with the given testimony of Frazier & Shaneyfelt.

Edited May 18, 2006 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Bill Miller]

dgh03:The best you have countering 'trouble negotiating' a turn onto Elm St? **eyewitness** WC testimony from Truly, is not good? lmao

mummmwah? me? nah, actually I didn't participate in many threads at all, my post count could of told you that...speaking of post count how many internet JFK related post you got going now, you gotta be approaching Dave Reitzes all time high what 25-30,000+? Keep at it, you'll get a handle on it!

David, I think that a reasonable person would first look to see why Roy Truly is the only assassination witness who made such a statement. I would note where he was standing and if there were a line of people between he and the motorcade so to get an idea as to whether he really had a good view or not. I would then compare his statement to the assassination films that recorded the turn. Then I would have to wonder if all the other witnesses were just blind to this event and the films all wrong, or had Truly merely stated how something looked from the angle and view he had to the scene, which allows him room for error considering the obstructions between he and the street and it also would explain why no one else claimed to have seen what he stated. But like I said ... that is what a reasonable person would consider - that doesn't include you.

Bill Miller

Edited May 18, 2006 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

dgh03:The best you have countering 'trouble negotiating' a turn onto Elm St? **eyewitness** WC testimony from Truly, is not good? lmao

mummmwah? me? nah, actually I didn't participate in many threads at all, my post count could of told you that...speaking of post count how many internet JFK related post you got going now, you gotta be approaching Dave Reitzes all time high what 25-30,000+? Keep at it, you'll get a handle on it!

David, I think that a reasonable person would first look to see why Roy Truly is the only assassination witness who made such a statement. I would note where he was standing and if there were a line of people between he and the motorcade so to get an idea as to whether he really had a good view or not. I would then compare his statement to the assassination films that recorded the turn. Then I would have to wonder if all the other witnesses were just blind to this event and the films all wrong, or had Truly merely stated how something looked from the angle and view he had to the scene, which allows him room for error considering the obstructions between he and the street and it also would explain why no one else claimed to have seen what he stated. But like I said ... that is what a reasonable person would consider - that doesn't include you.

Bill Miller

oh gosh Bill, there you go AGAIN with that old Lone Neuter axiom: "you can't trust eye witness testimony" -- You guys really need a new schtick.... so when are we going to hear from Roalnd and Ray?

[Bill Miller]

oh gosh Bill, there you go AGAIN with that old Lone Neuter axiom: "you can't trust eye witness testimony" -- You guys really need a new schtick.... so when are we going to hear from Roalnd and Ray?

Actally, David ... I consider eye witness testimony all the time, especially if it can substantiated by independent witnesses and/or film. The problem I have and I will repeat for a dyslexic like yourself ... over 200 witnesses watched the morotcade pass by the TSBD and Truly is the only one that I know of that claimed to have witnesses the limo come within an inch of the north curb. Maybe Truly was like Superman and could see through such things as a line of people between he and the curb, but I really doubt it. Hey ... one witness said he saw the President stand up in the car during the shooting ... maybe you might want to make that a new piece of evidence for film alteration. Another witnessed observation was that JFK's ear look like it flew off and this too was the only witness who made such a statement. Yet even CT's supporters who saw the President's body have not said that Kennedy was missing an ear, of course you might purpose that JFK had three ears so to avoid the point being made. Me, I'll just write it off as someone's interpretation that was subject to error because of a set of circumstances.

Bill

Edited May 18, 2006 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

'Bill Miller' dronned on....

oh gosh Bill, there you go AGAIN with that old Lone Neuter axiom: "you can't trust eye witness testimony" -- You guys really need a new schtick.... so when are we going to hear from Roalnd and Ray?

Actally, David ... I consider eye witness testimony all the time, especially if it can substantiated by independent witnesses and/or film. The problem I have and I will repeat for a dyslexic like yourself

dgh01: dyslexic? that got to do with XXX< Bill? You make so many inferences and accusations it's hard seperateing them

... over 200 witnesses watched the morotcade pass by the TSBD and Truly is the only one that I know of that claimed to have witnesses the limo come within an inch of the north curb. Maybe Truly was like Superman and could see through such things as a line of people between he and the curb, but I really doubt it.

dgh01: perhaps Truly saw it because it happened right in front of him? What a idea? What was the name of the building he managed and where is it locared in Dealey Plaza?

Hey ... one witness said he saw the President stand up in the car during the shooting ... maybe you might want to make that a new piece of evidence for film alteration. Another witnessed observation was that JFK's ear look like it flew off and this too was the only witness who made such a statement. Yet even CT's supporters who saw the President's body have not said that Kennedy was missing an ear, of course you might purpose that JFK had three ears so to avoid the point being made. Me, I'll just write it off as someone's interpretation that was subject to error because of a set of circumstances.

dgh01: stick with the Zapruder film, you go beyond that, some start wondering...

Bill

Edited February 6, 2010 by Kathy Beckett

[Bill Miller]

dgh01: dyslexic? that got to do with XXX>, Bill? You make so many inferences and accusations it's hard seperateing them

David you spelled separating wrong by two letters. I guess we can add that to your list of other handicaps.

dgh01: perhaps Truly saw it because it happened right in front of him? What a idea? What was the name of the building he managed and where is it locared in Dealey Plaza?

Hey ... one witness said he saw the President stand up in the car during the shooting ... maybe you might want to make that a new piece of evidence for film alteration. Another witnessed observation was that JFK's ear look like it flew off and this too was the only witness who made such a statement. Yet even CT's supporters who saw the President's body have not said that Kennedy was missing an ear, of course you might purpose that JFK had three ears so to avoid the point being made. Me, I'll just write it off as someone's interpretation that was subject to error because of a set of circumstances.

dgh01: stick with the Zapruder film, you go beyond that, some start wondering...

Truly worked in the TSBD - so what? That doesn't tell us if he had people lined in front of him who prevented him from actually getting a good view of the street. The reference to the witnesses saying JFK's ear flew off and the President standing up in his seat is relevant because Bill Newman was right on the Elm Street curb and he made some erred observations himself. I would have thought you to be sharp enough to see the connection.

Bill

Edited February 6, 2010 by Kathy Beckett