The Education Forum

# Splice in Tina Towner Film

## Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

nice job Chris(s), David J., etal....

Agreed!

• Replies 283
• Created

#### Posted Images

Thank you David H and Michael C.

This is somewhat complicated to explain, but I'll try to make it as easy as possible.

The early determination of shot locations were designated on the SS plat of Dec5,1963 along with the FBI revision in Feb 1964.

They were labeled as Shot 1,2,3 but what they didn't label with a number (say 4) is the shot at extant z313.

I'll only deal with the shots labeled 2,3 to begin with.

The plat is on top and the calculations for those two shots below.

In the upper left hand corner is the description of the angle that was added to the "pivot" location.

Since there were two determinations of the street angle, 3deg8min(3.13degrees) and 3deg9min(3.15degrees), I used the final determined angle (Plat of May 1964) of 3.13degrees.

The shot labeled #3 is the location I have previously described as occurring down near Altgens position.

The plat dimensions above match the calculations below for the triangles formed in shot 2 and 3.

The only difference between shot 2 and 3 is the angle of 3.13degrees (14.595-17.725) which is described as the street grade.

17deg43min30sec = 17.725 degrees

##### Share on other sites

If you want to confirm the street angle shenanigan, look no further than the plat (upper-left) where the two distance span measurements are entered (28+24.5) = 52.5ft.

At the bottom, those same calculations as the previous graphic will yield a base distance of 52.72ft.

##### Share on other sites

Let's connect that "pivot" angle of 17deg43min30sec from shots 2+3 to the magic bullet.

That's the same angle that was used for the magic bullet before the street slope was added into the equation.

Amazing that the "pivot" angle was derived using an average angle spanning 15 frames.

There is no magic bullet, but there sure is a magic angle.

##### Share on other sites

On 5/12/2017 at 4:19 PM, David G. Healy said:

nice job Chris(s), David J., etal....

Agreed!

##### Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Thank you David H and Michael C.

This is somewhat complicated to explain, but I'll try to make it as easy as possible.

The early determination of shot locations were designated on the SS plat of Dec5,1963 along with the FBI revision in Feb 1964.

They were labeled as Shot 1,2,3 but what they didn't label with a number (say 4) is the shot at extant z313.

I'll only deal with the shots labeled 2,3 to begin with.

The plat is on top and the calculations for those two shots below.

In the upper left hand corner is the description of the angle that was added to the "pivot" location.

Since there were two determinations of the street angle, 3deg8min(3.13degrees) and 3deg9min(3.15degrees), I used the final determined angle (Plat of May 1964) of 3.13degrees.

The shot labeled #3 is the location I have previously described as occurring down near Altgens position.

The plat dimensions above match the calculations below for the triangles formed in shot 2 and 3.

The only difference between shot 2 and 3 is the angle of 3.13degrees (14.595-17.725) which is described as the street grade.

17deg43min30sec = 17.725 degrees

##### Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

If you want to confirm the street angle shenanigan, look no further than the plat (upper-left) where the two distance span measurements are entered (28+24.5) = 52.5ft.

At the bottom, those same calculations as the previous graphic will yield a base distance of 52.72ft.

##### Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Let's connect that "pivot" angle of 17deg43min30sec from shots 2+3 to the magic bullet.

That's the same angle that was used for the magic bullet before the street slope was added into the equation.

Amazing that the "pivot" angle was derived using an average angle spanning 15 frames.

There is no magic bullet, but there sure is a magic angle.

##### Share on other sites

Chris continues to go on with this but has never once replied to Jeremy B's and Pat S's rebuttals to all of this.

And as I've  said elsewhere people like Chris who latch on to misinterpreted testimony and won't let go are like the little dogs who grab onto a passerby's ankle. You simply can't  reason with them.

The only thing  that you can get them  to  say is "thanks" when someone agrees with them and "go away" when someone doesn't.

And let's  say for argument's sake Chris is right. That the angles of the road in the reports need to be corrected. What then? What is the outcome? I've  asked  this  numerous  times and there's  been no convincing  reply from Chris nor anyone  else. No convincing result that justifies all of this number crunching and angle calculating.

And remember  too that  another  researcher  who supports  all of  this  told me privately "I think they did it....because they could." So there's  that too.

##### Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Chris continues to go on with this but has never once replied to Jeremy B's and Pat S's rebuttals to all of this.

And as I've  said elsewhere people like Chris who latch on to misinterpreted testimony and won't let go are like the little dogs who grab onto a passerby's ankle. You simply can't  reason with them.

The only thing  that you can get them  to  say is "thanks" when someone agrees with them and "go away" when someone doesn't.

And let's  say for argument's sake Chris is right. That the angles of the road in the reports need to be corrected. What then? What is the outcome? I've  asked  this  numerous  times and there's  been no convincing  reply from Chris nor anyone  else. No convincing result that justifies all of this number crunching and angle calculating.

And remember  too that  another  researcher  who supports  all of  this  told me privately "I think they did it....because they could." So there's  that too.

This is what you comprehended and concluded from what I've just presented?

##### Share on other sites

Quote

And let's  say for argument's sake Chris is right. That the angles of the road in the reports need to be corrected. What then? What is the outcome? I've  asked  this  numerous  times and there's  been no convincing  reply from Chris nor anyone  else. No convincing result that justifies all of this number crunching and angle calculating.

Mr. Walton,

Despite having no real interest, continually asking "WHY" as if any one of us has the franchise on that answer, and basically observing this thread as if you were looking at hieroglyphics - you still DEMAND... even REQUIRE us to continually explain it to you...

Toddle off already Mike...  you have no real need to understand and we truly cannot make this sh!t any simpler.

Follow along...  Just like we know Harry Holmes was full of it when he offered his "how we found the rifle" evidence because we did the research and analysis, creoss corroboration and find that 99% of the time, government offered evidence is pure crap.

You "feelings" one way or another regarding the Zfilm is just that... feelings and opinions.  What we are doing here is quantifying the steps involved in the FBI/SS/CIA Zfilm charade...  Illuminating what Shaneyfelt and Frazier CONSPIRED to do.  How Eisenberg, Gauthier and a handful of others where able to falsify the record and create false evidence.

Muchmore insists she did not film the assassination sequence... anyone seeing the difference between Muchmore's film prior to the cut at z272 and then after can easily tell she was not the source of the film...  and the math supports and confirms this.

How about giving us all a break already and moving on to a thread where you understand the subject matter?  We KNOW what you think about the film...  what we don't understand is why you'd remain so closed off to other approaches to the data...  For G~d sake already Mike...  you aint gonna learn what you dont wanna know here...

Does continually poking and hoping on these MATH thread bring you some sort of satisfaction?  Are YOU trying to make some sort of opinionated point or do you have anything beyond your own observations to support your opposing conclusions?

##### Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Let's connect that "pivot" angle of 17deg43min30sec from shots 2+3 to the magic bullet.

That's the same angle that was used for the magic bullet before the street slope was added into the equation.

Amazing that the "pivot" angle was derived using an average angle spanning 15 frames.

There is no magic bullet, but there sure is a magic angle.

If I was trying to support the lone gunman/6th floor shooter scenario, melding multiple shooters/shots, you can sure bet my ballistics results would support that location.

Common location, common/magic angle.

If you move back to shot#2, it is listed as elevation 419.07, the height to the 6th floor window sill is 71.83ft (490.9-419.07).

From that location, using the magic angle of 17.725 degrees, the base distance to the 6th floor SE window = 224.73ft

Previously, Chris had asked me what the angle was from z273 to the snipers nest, and I responded with this:

##### Share on other sites

See this is exactly what I  mean. No explanation. No answers. No defense of the theory or discussion of others rebuttals. No rebuttals to Jeremy and Speers. Now Josephs is taking the same tact and telling me to scoot off.

David you  can think whatever you  want about my knowledge of this case. I  think I  have a decent knowledge  of  the  case and I  think where we and others and me diverge sharply  is I  dont buy into everything  under the sun as being a conspiracy. I  think that's  where a lot of folks here get themselves into trouble.

You yourself told me "See Michael I  think they did because  they can."

I mean really...? Why would you  think that? They already had their patsy 6 foot in the grave. All they had to do was massage the story here and there to make it all official in the WR.

Why would  you  ever think they'd  go through  all of this extra work, film manipulation  and so on....because they "could" when they didn't  need to?

It doesn't  make sense.

##### Share on other sites

Michael W. excerpt: "That the angles of the road in the reports need to be corrected."

##### Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

If I was trying to support the lone gunman/6th floor shooter scenario, melding multiple shooters/shots, you can sure bet my ballistics results would support that location.

Common location, common/magic angle.

If you move back to shot#2, it is listed as elevation 419.07, the height to the 6th floor window sill is 71.83ft (490.9-419.07).

From that location, using the magic angle of 17.725 degrees, the base distance to the 6th floor SE window = 224.73ft

Previously, Chris had asked me what the angle was from z273 to the snipers nest, and I responded with this:

Using the magic angle and applying it to the elev (6th floor window sill) of shot #2 and z273 previously plotted, there is a 1ft difference in elevation.

The base difference between them is 3.1ft

You should know by now that a 3.13degree slope equals a 1ft vertical/18.3ft horizontal distance ratio.

18.3ft -3.1ft = 15.2ft

There are two main aspects of this assassination that involve15.2ft

### Announcements

×

• #### Store

×
• Create New...