The Education Forum

# Splice in Tina Towner Film

## Recommended Posts

Not necessarily.

This is much easier corroboration for frame jumping, than the Towner splice. So I'll leave it at that.

Position A is more important in terms of an equation that applies, moving down Elm St.

We discussed some of this via email, awhile back.

##### Share on other sites

• 2 weeks later...
• Replies 283
• Created

#### Posted Images

Another easy way to prove the 18.3 fps frame rate is bogus would be to plot JFK's position from z133-z166.

Use the LOS from the Z pedestal to the background lamp-post (frame z166) along Robert West's path.

35.90ft / 1.803 sec (33frames@18.3fps) = 13.54mph

Dale Myers average for limo from Towner End to z150 = 9.8mph

Difference = 3.74mph

If you wanted to use the average of 9.8 and 10.5 = 10.15mph to cover thru z166, the conversion would be:

10.15 x 1.016666... x 1.3114... = 13.53 mph

It's that simple to show the Zapruder film was not shot at 18.3fps.

Myers project was supposed to be a frame x frame sync of multiple films using Z at 18.3fps.

Can't have a sync when your speed for the limo in a 33 frame stretch is off by 3.74mph.

This is basic math.

##### Share on other sites

You can also refer back to this graphic (right-side): http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/22692-swan-song-math-rules/&do=findComment&comment=326122

Then compare the shift to this SS recreation version when applying the same technique as the extant Z film.

##### Share on other sites

Once you realize that part of the reduction from 48-18.3 included reducing the frame count via one pass = close equivalent to 24 fps, you can then put the SS recreation in its proper context. Yes, the recreation was shot at 24fps for this specific reason.

Or, a car traveling at 14.94 mph / (24/18.3fps) / (18.3/18 whole frames) = 11.2mph = Shaneyfelt slip-up BS.

Equals the importance of a 3.74mph difference: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/9975-splice-in-tina-towner-film/&do=findComment&comment=354306

##### Share on other sites

And, according to CE884 entered on the final WC plat of May1964, you can find these common speeds in the first entries provided (z168-z186)

Overall entry of 21.6ft traveled in 18 frames = 21.96ft traveled in 18.3 frames = 1 second = 14.94mph

And, the first entries from z168-z171:

3 frames = .9ft traveled = 18.3frames (1 sec) / 3 frames = 6.1 x .9ft = 5.49ft per sec = 3.734mph

Now, to arrive at Shaneyfelt’s magic 11.2 mph , just take 14.94mph - 3.74 mph =11.2mph.

In frame removal format, 3.734/14.94 = 1/4. Or, just apply it to the previous gif provided.

##### Share on other sites

The WC being the smart entity that they were and in keeping with the correct ratios, quite properly assigned 25 frames (officially published CE884) to the same distance traveled for 18 frames - z168-186.

Since 1 second of time equaled 18.3fps not 18fps, and part of the 48 to 18.3fps conversion included an approx 24fps step down, then the equivalent would have been the next whole frame or 25 frames.

This might be the easiest way to recognize what conversions were occurring if you are not interested in the math equations.

##### Share on other sites

48fps stepped down to 18.3:

Starting at Z133 through the end, the percentage missing is approx 61.87 %

A sample of this 61.87% overall frame removal process below:

If you want to include the frames missing from Z1 - Z133 also, the percentage of total frames missing would be approx 72.3%.

##### Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

48fps stepped down to 18.3:

Starting at Z133 through the end, the percentage missing is approx 61.87 %

A sample of this 61.87% overall frame removal process below:

If you want to include the frames missing from Z1 - Z133 also, the percentage of total frames missing would be approx 72.3%.

Excellent progression Chris.   With the recreation film at 24fps your idea of an initial cut-down to 24fps makes sense.
You think they 1st created a complete 24fps cut-down then took that film and created the final version by removing frames in selective locations, (ie between 303-305 & 314-317 for example).

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Starting with frame 171, going through frame 334.
Mr. SPECTER. And why did you start with frame 171?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is the frame that the slides start from.

One thought is he did not switch to 48fps until after the limo's brush with the Elm curb which is why everything between 132 and 133 is removed.  There are at least 80-90 frames based on the earlier frames of a motorcycle going into that corner and then emerging again.

Bringing us to Position A

334 - 171 = 163 frames @ 18.3fps = 8.9 seconds of film x 48fps = 427 frames @ 48fps between z171 & z334
427 / 2 = 213.6 @ 24fps (1st pass = 213.4 frames removed) - 50.6 frames (just under 25% of the 213.6 @ 24fps) = 163 frames @ 18.3fps

We are also to remember that  the only other speed for the camera was 16fps.  If he was not filming at 48fps then it had to be 16fps despite what the FBI claims occurred when they wound the camera.  It would be easier to just film the entire thing at 48fps.  The calcs are the same just with longer frame ranges.

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

334 - 171 = 163 frames @ 18.3fps = 8.9 seconds of film x 48fps = 427 frames @ 48fps between z171 & z334
427 / 2 = 213.6 @ 24fps (1st pass = 213.4 frames removed) - 50.6 frames (just under 25% of the 213.6 @ 24fps) = 163 frames @ 18.3fps

David,

Putting the above frame reduction into a speed difference:

3.734mph/14.94mph = 1/4.

Myers difference confirms it and so does CE884 (final plat version) entries for z168-z186.

Keep thinking in terms of ratios.

1/2 = .5

1/2 x 1/4 = 1/8 = .125

.5 + .125 = .625

Closest ratio to 1 / (48/18.3) = .38138 is:  .375       + .625 = 1 whole frame

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

David,

Putting the above frame reduction into a speed difference:

3.734mph/14.94mph = 1/4.

Myers difference confirms it and so does CE884 (final plat version) entries for z168-z186.

Keep thinking in terms of ratios.

1/2 = .5

1/2 x 1/4 = 1/8 = .125

.5 + .125 = .625

Closest ratio to 1 / (48/18.3) = .38138 is:  .375       + .625 = 1 whole frame

I'm agreeing with you wholeheartedly about the initial 24fps cut down for any running film taken at 48fps.
And by obvious observation all frames = those removed plus those that remained

I'm not as inclined to accept that they simply did that again due to the choppiness even when seen stabilized.

What I am leaning toward is the relationship between the slope and the camera speed.  By syncing them as they did, 1 second of film equated to 1 foot of vertical height, and how important the various changes in measurements were based on the correct heights involved.

Cutting it all the way down to 16fps would not have been that much more difficult and would have matched with the specs of the camera...  so why 18.3?
It served their needs.

I don't think we need to be 100% in agreement on the process despite how much easier a 24fps 1st pass would be.

Bottom line - we both know that those 6 seconds were not what originally came out of that camera, that day, as a result of Zapruder filming.

##### Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

I'm agreeing with you wholeheartedly about the initial 24fps cut down for any running film taken at 48fps.

Thanks. I know you were.

And by obvious observation all frames = those removed plus those that remained

I'm not as inclined to accept that they simply did that again due to the choppiness even when seen stabilized.

Yet, the intervals work, and most importantly, the Kodak film edge markings remain correctly spaced.

Removing 2/3 at a time does not work.

What I am leaning toward is the relationship between the slope and the camera speed.  By syncing them as they did, 1 second of film equated to 1 foot of vertical height, and how important the various changes in measurements were based on the correct heights involved.

You are wise to keep this in mind. They had to tie-in multiple shots to one snipers nest location.

More on that later.

Cutting it all the way down to 16fps would not have been that much more difficult and would have matched with the specs of the camera...  so why 18.3?
It served their needs.

Agreed, but 16fps did not allow for enough frames for ultimate syncing.

I don't think we need to be 100% in agreement on the process despite how much easier a 24fps 1st pass would be.

A half and a quarter will get you the extant film. The math works with it, which is the most important part.

How in-depth in terms of an optical printer is up for discussion.

Bottom line - we both know that those 6 seconds were not what originally came out of that camera, that day, as a result of Zapruder filming.

Did you mean 26.5479 seconds?

##### Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Did you mean 26.5479 seconds?

It would have to be...

I don't know if Zapruder was involved prior to that day...  has anyone looked deeply into the 3-4 months of Abe's life prior to 11/22?

My point being he'd have to purposefully change to 48fps and turn it off again if we are talking only of 171-334...  makes more sense that it was all filmed at that speed..

It would be hard to tell on the 16mm preview projector Chamberlain used at 4x speed.. ... wait,   just dawns on me that at 4-6x or 64-96fps the film would actually look only slightly fast compared to what would normally be seen.  yet the problem remains the FBI is looking at a 16mm film at Kodak on the 23rd... which appears to be already cut down.

I know you prefer to stay away from what the math suggests... the "how"... yet if it was done this way, there is a "how",
whether we can conceive of it is another question entirely.

Chamberlain swears repeatedly he only gave Zapruder 2 rolls of IIA film...  another discussion for another time

DJ

##### Share on other sites

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

It would have to be...

Some of the difficulties encountered were figuring out the shorter spans first and then connecting it to the overall.

makes more sense that it was all filmed at that speed..

If I wasn't clear, I do believe the entire sequence was shot at 48fps.

That would be from z1-z486. And this z1 would not be what we see from the extant film, obviously.

The other equations I've created (not introduced yet) are from the entire sequence, not specific spans such as 171-334, those smaller spans just legitimize the overall. Especially, when using both CE884's and Myers work.

I know you prefer to stay away from what the math suggests... the "how"... yet if it was done this way, there is a "how",
whether we can conceive of it is another question entirely.

If what was done what way?

##### Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

If what was done what way?

if a 48fps film was used to create the 0183 original by cutting out key sequences...

there are films to be accounted for.  How?

The film to Dina at NPIC from SA Smith from Hawkeyework Saturday night was already altered to some extent, (possibly the first 24fps cutdown version ?? )

So those first boards were not preserved.  only the Homer boards of the extent Zfilm... done deal by Sunday.

How...  with some corroborating evidence if possible - the existing evidence I've seen only hints at it.

Great work and thanks for keeping me reaching with this

##### Share on other sites

NPIC indication of the initial 1/2 step-down?

Added on edit: Since there was no frame numbering system via NPIC during this time period, that I know of, the labeling of missing frames just further cements the conclusion that some type of step-down process was in action.

Edited by Chris Davidson
##### Share on other sites

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

### Announcements

×

• #### Store

×
• Create New...