Chris Davidson

https://vimeo.com/936475992?share=copy

Used intelligently, it "can be" and "has been" a very helpful and productive tool when working with equations.

Frame on the right side shot with B/H 414:

btw, the latter footsie is actually his left leg and foot:

Didn't care for the crop in the extant film. Others have recreated with the same camera:

The truck footage was not full zoom. Here are two that were:

A limo before its time.

Is it logical to conclude one of these drivers is applying the brakes?

Sandy, You're more than welcome to remove my "illogical" posts at any time.

Robert, Lending you some support for that part of the film. Extant z411-417 = 6 frames / 18.3fps = 1/3 second. Jackie can't land her elbow down to the trunk deck(with her rear end above the seat top) and then slide to where we see her in z, 1/3 second later.(Humanly impossible-challenge offered many times before) Conveniently, the Nix film ends there. In the extant z411-417 span, there are four quite obvious blurred??? frames. Your z413 perspective study being in the middle of that morass.

Referring to sizes, what version of this limo among these four choices (the fourth being the transparent combo of the top/bottom frames) best represents what is seen in the extant, full zoomed??? film, not including what's between the sprocket holes?

And, since the title of the topic has to do with logic, wouldn't it be logical to allow the Professional Surveyor Robert West to do his job. First testify for the WC which he wasn't called to do. Yet, when called in the Clay Shaw trial, the powers that be didn't want the truth revealed. Why not? Of course, via Tom's conversations with Robert, West knew they were up to no good. Kind of makes you wonder why CE884 has the limo traveling at 2.24mph via z161-166 or 3.74mph via z168-171(depending on which CE884 version is being referenced) when the extant film clearly shows it was not. Wouldn't it be logical to find out why?

Might just make you wonder why the limo doesn't follow the same arc especially coming out from behind the sign.

Received from Tom Purvis via Robert West.

Below, Just imagine adding a sign post to the left side of the damaged extant frame, using the same distance relationship between the "red arrowed" post and the right side post. That would be a match to what is seen in the reenactment frame from the previous post(obviously rotated), where the background tree lands in between and basically centered within the two posts.

And speaking of filming from back there, how much of a"shift/angle" change in the sign would occur when compared to the extant film? Can you locate these people using the red arrows from the Portable Pedestal frame?

I know it's from a different perspective, but do any of those multiple filmers appear as if they might be in a similar location as the figure in Wiegman? It might make one wonder why someone was drawing LOS lines on the survey plat involving the Stemmons Sign.

Perhaps this reenactment will help: Don't forget to locate the "Portable Pedestal" too.

Welcome to the forum, Aaron. https://vimeo.com/911660532?share=copy

Speaking of a 10" vertical, I believe you could describe one of the head shots as a 3ft "short of the mark" shot. That would allow the same relationship of a "lower back to lower head" and "higher back to higher head" shot. A great reason for Gerald Ford to move the lower back location as he did. And, since CE884 uses a back height wound (3.27ft above the street) instead of a true z313 head shot elevation, one might get confused as to the actual true ballistics and where that shot actually occurred on Elm Street. But, leave it to the powers that be to convince you a 10" vertical drop on Elm Street equated to a .9ft distance traveled(z161-166) instead of 15.25ft (10"/12 =.8333 x 18.3)