Chris Davidson Posted May 28, 2008 Author Share Posted May 28, 2008 Thanks Tom. Here are the next comparisons. Once again, the animation is a reflection of the photos provided. Sorry about the size, but had to keep it reasonable. Frame 185 is labeled, so after that point, concentrate on the sprocket hole (jumps) movement. Then refer back to Tom's chart for these frames. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted May 28, 2008 Author Share Posted May 28, 2008 A little help if needed. The chart has the limo traveling less than a foot from frames 161-166. The animation shows the distance traveled for these frames. What do you think? chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 A little help if needed.The chart has the limo traveling less than a foot from frames 161-166. The animation shows the distance traveled for these frames. What do you think? chris Hi Chris, It looks to me like the limo travels at least 4 feet during these frames... Against your fixed reference point, it covers the entire distance of the wheel well and then some. Of course, there are some additional considerations in determining the actual distance, but just on a quick glance, it looks like 3-4 feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted May 28, 2008 Author Share Posted May 28, 2008 Frank, I think your close, according to Gary Mack. Here is his email response to my post: Chris, What do I think about your post #55? I think you don't know how to do photo interpretation. Here's how I would approach this simple math problem: The conversion of miles per hour to feet/second is 1.4667. So 11.3 mph (the average speed of the limo on Elm as established by the FBI using the Z, Nix and Muchmore films) equates to 16.57 feet. Using the 5 frame sequence you chose (161 to 166) is 5/18 of a second or .27 seconds. So the distance the limo traveled should be 16.57 x .27 = 4.48 feet. What is the distance from the front bumper to the back side of the right front tire? Well, you can look that up but I think you'll find it's about 4 feet. Don't quit your day job, Chris. Gary Gary needs to take a look at the W/C documents supplied for frame 161/166. (Photo Provided) He should notice that according to these documents, someone (I believe the SAME FBI that used the Z, Nix and Muchmore films) determined the limo traveled a distance of .9 ft between frames 161 and 166. Sounds to me like all 3 films used fuzzy math. So which is correct Gary? The film or the WC? If the film is correct, the WHOLE reenactment figures are down the toilet. Just as Tom Purvis has shown us. If the WC is correct, the film is phony. I vote for #3. Reenactment and the film are both phony. Pertaining to photo interpretation. Well, yes photos can be interpreted, but the MATH NEVER LIES. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Kiehl Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 keep going CD.....tom kiehl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 Frank,I think your close, according to Gary Mack. Here is his email response to my post: Chris, What do I think about your post #55? I think you don't know how to do photo interpretation. Here's how I would approach this simple math problem: The conversion of miles per hour to feet/second is 1.4667. So 11.3 mph (the average speed of the limo on Elm as established by the FBI using the Z, Nix and Muchmore films) equates to 16.57 feet. Using the 5 frame sequence you chose (161 to 166) is 5/18 of a second or .27 seconds. So the distance the limo traveled should be 16.57 x .27 = 4.48 feet. What is the distance from the front bumper to the back side of the right front tire? Well, you can look that up but I think you'll find it's about 4 feet. Don't quit your day job, Chris. Gary Gary needs to take a look at the W/C documents supplied for frame 161/166. (Photo Provided) He should notice that according to these documents, someone (I believe the SAME FBI that used the Z, Nix and Muchmore films) determined the limo traveled a distance of .9 ft between frames 161 and 166. Sounds to me like all 3 films used fuzzy math. So which is correct Gary? The film or the WC? If the film is correct, the WHOLE reenactment figures are down the toilet. Just as Tom Purvis has shown us. If the WC is correct, the film is phony. I vote for #3. Reenactment and the film are both phony. Pertaining to photo interpretation. Well, yes photos can be interpreted, but the MATH NEVER LIES. chris Anyone who has doubts, just may wish to check the "Distance to Overpass", which, when the big one is subtracted from the little one, indicates 0.9 feet of forward movement. P.S. I utilized Mr. West actual survey notes, but one can if they so desire, utililize the station numbers given as well. The "Distance to Overpass" is merely a mean to "hide" information, as exactly who was it that thought that it too had significance?????? "Hide in Plain Sight"!------------------------Always the best way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 Chris...I guess I am a little dense. Gimme a hint what to look for.Jack Jack Take a look at the "Vehicle Speed Data Chart". (Supplied) Compare the top/bottom red squares. Frame difference between them is 7 total. Total distance traveled is the SAME. Keep that in mind when looking at my previous sprocket hole comparison photo. If I take 7 frames away between (160-169) the limo would still start and stop at the same spot. What changes is the speed of the limo. Less frames to go the same distance. Then take a look at (157-160) primarily the distance between the sprocket hole frames and compare that to (160-169). 157-160 is not indicative of someone panning at the same rate as 160-169. It is however, what we see on the "Vehicle Speed Data Chart" supplied by Tom. Less frames but same distance traveled chris One should never forget that sometimes what may at first appear as a small "key", just may be what is required to unlock a big door! http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm Mr. SPECTER. And what, if anything, was done at the site of the assassination on that date? Mr. SHANEYFELT. On May 24, 1964, representatives of the Commission, Secret Service, and FBI reenacted the assassination, relocated specific locations of the car on the street based on the motion pictures, and in general staged a reenactment. Mr. SPECTER. Who was present at that time representing the Commission? Mr. SHANEYFELT. The Commission was represented by Mr. Rankin, Mr. Specter, and Mr. Redlich. Mr. SPECTER. And who was present at that time from the FBI? Mr. SHANEYFELT. I was present, Inspector Gauthier was present, Inspector J. R. Malley was present, Special Agent R. A. Frazier was present, with some aids, assistants. Mr. SPECTER. Other aids from the FBI were also present? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; in addition, there were several agents from the Dallas office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who assisted. Mr. SPECTER. And were there representatives of the Secret Service participating in that onsite testing? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there were. Inspector Kelley was present, Agent John Howlett was present, the driver of the car, or the Secret Service agent whose name I do not recall---- ------------------------------------------------------------ I would suppose that the operative word would be "staged"! And in that regards, the "pre-operative" word should most probably be "poorly"! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.S. One guess as to who was involved in the alteration of the survey data block! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. SPECTER. What was the starting position of the car at the most easterly position on Elm Street, immediately after turning off Houston Street? 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEAD GIVEAWAY! Too bad that you informed Mr. West that it was 168, which he most assuredly recorded! And, since the descrepancy immediately is shown in the beginning frame, and the number 168 was changed to 161, which matches exactly with this testimony. Me thinks we have the primary xxxx in our sights! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to ascertain the speed of the Presidential limousine at the time of the assassination? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; because we were able to determine the speed of the camera, and thereby accurately determine the length of time it takes for a specific number of frames to run through the camera at this 18.3 frames per second, and having located these frame positions in the street, we took the farthest distance point we had in the Zapruder film which was frame 161 through frame 313. This was found to run elapsed time from the film standpoint which runs at 18.3 frames a second, runs for a total of 8.3 seconds. This distance is 136.1 feet, and this can be calculated then to 11.2 miles per hour ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That pretty well cinches it in my book. ------------------------------------------- Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; after positioning the car in the street at the specific locations and making the movies with the Zapruder, Nix, and Muchmore cameras with the car running at 11 miles an hour on the route, I then went to the sixth-floor --------------------------- A little icing on the cake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 If the film is correct, the WHOLE reenactment figures are down the toilet. Just as Tom Purvis has shown us.If the WC is correct, the film is phony. I vote for #3. Reenactment and the film are both phony. Pertaining to photo interpretation. Well, yes photos can be interpreted, but the MATH NEVER LIES. chris Chris, I've looked at this over the years -- mostly as a result of trying to appreciate what Tom's research has shown. I think it is more than safe to say that there are serious issues with the WC re-enactment figures. I'd go so far as to call them fatally flawed. Your graphic adds additional reinforcement to what Tom has been saying for a while now. Good catch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted May 29, 2008 Author Share Posted May 29, 2008 If the film is correct, the WHOLE reenactment figures are down the toilet. Just as Tom Purvis has shown us.If the WC is correct, the film is phony. I vote for #3. Reenactment and the film are both phony. Pertaining to photo interpretation. Well, yes photos can be interpreted, but the MATH NEVER LIES. chris Chris, I've looked at this over the years -- mostly as a result of trying to appreciate what Tom's research has shown. I think it is more than safe to say that there are serious issues with the WC re-enactment figures. I'd go so far as to call them fatally flawed. Your graphic adds additional reinforcement to what Tom has been saying for a while now. Good catch! Thanks Frank, I'm glad you feel this supports what Tom has been showing us for a long time. I think this is "child's play" for him. He's someone who "plain and simple" is just smarter than most. Tom, Your last few posts are PRICELESS. I'm not sure if I will continue with the final frames, as you have "driven the final nail in the coffin". Most appreciative, chris P.S. Wondering if this is worth pursuing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 If the film is correct, the WHOLE reenactment figures are down the toilet. Just as Tom Purvis has shown us.If the WC is correct, the film is phony. I vote for #3. Reenactment and the film are both phony. Pertaining to photo interpretation. Well, yes photos can be interpreted, but the MATH NEVER LIES. chris Chris, I've looked at this over the years -- mostly as a result of trying to appreciate what Tom's research has shown. I think it is more than safe to say that there are serious issues with the WC re-enactment figures. I'd go so far as to call them fatally flawed. Your graphic adds additional reinforcement to what Tom has been saying for a while now. Good catch! Thanks Frank, I'm glad you feel this supports what Tom has been showing us for a long time. I think this is "child's play" for him. He's someone who "plain and simple" is just smarter than most. Tom, Your last few posts are PRICELESS. I'm not sure if I will continue with the final frames, as you have "driven the final nail in the coffin". Most appreciative, chris P.S. Wondering if this is worth pursuing. He's someone who "plain and simple" is just smarter than most. Wrong Word! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 If the film is correct, the WHOLE reenactment figures are down the toilet. Just as Tom Purvis has shown us.If the WC is correct, the film is phony. I vote for #3. Reenactment and the film are both phony. Pertaining to photo interpretation. Well, yes photos can be interpreted, but the MATH NEVER LIES. chris Chris, I've looked at this over the years -- mostly as a result of trying to appreciate what Tom's research has shown. I think it is more than safe to say that there are serious issues with the WC re-enactment figures. I'd go so far as to call them fatally flawed. Your graphic adds additional reinforcement to what Tom has been saying for a while now. Good catch! what Tom has been saying One of life's great disappointments will always be that I neither thought up, nor can be given any credit for this "Great Statement". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 Chris...I guess I am a little dense. Gimme a hint what to look for.Jack Jack Take a look at the "Vehicle Speed Data Chart". (Supplied) Compare the top/bottom red squares. Frame difference between them is 7 total. Total distance traveled is the SAME. Keep that in mind when looking at my previous sprocket hole comparison photo. If I take 7 frames away between (160-169) the limo would still start and stop at the same spot. What changes is the speed of the limo. Less frames to go the same distance. Then take a look at (157-160) primarily the distance between the sprocket hole frames and compare that to (160-169). 157-160 is not indicative of someone panning at the same rate as 160-169. It is however, what we see on the "Vehicle Speed Data Chart" supplied by Tom. Less frames but same distance traveled chris One should never forget that sometimes what may at first appear as a small "key", just may be what is required to unlock a big door! http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm Mr. SPECTER. And what, if anything, was done at the site of the assassination on that date? Mr. SHANEYFELT. On May 24, 1964, representatives of the Commission, Secret Service, and FBI reenacted the assassination, relocated specific locations of the car on the street based on the motion pictures, and in general staged a reenactment. Mr. SPECTER. Who was present at that time representing the Commission? Mr. SHANEYFELT. The Commission was represented by Mr. Rankin, Mr. Specter, and Mr. Redlich. Mr. SPECTER. And who was present at that time from the FBI? Mr. SHANEYFELT. I was present, Inspector Gauthier was present, Inspector J. R. Malley was present, Special Agent R. A. Frazier was present, with some aids, assistants. Mr. SPECTER. Other aids from the FBI were also present? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; in addition, there were several agents from the Dallas office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who assisted. Mr. SPECTER. And were there representatives of the Secret Service participating in that onsite testing? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there were. Inspector Kelley was present, Agent John Howlett was present, the driver of the car, or the Secret Service agent whose name I do not recall---- ------------------------------------------------------------ I would suppose that the operative word would be "staged"! And in that regards, the "pre-operative" word should most probably be "poorly"! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.S. One guess as to who was involved in the alteration of the survey data block! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. SPECTER. What was the starting position of the car at the most easterly position on Elm Street, immediately after turning off Houston Street? 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEAD GIVEAWAY! Too bad that you informed Mr. West that it was 168, which he most assuredly recorded! And, since the descrepancy immediately is shown in the beginning frame, and the number 168 was changed to 161, which matches exactly with this testimony. Me thinks we have the primary xxxx in our sights! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to ascertain the speed of the Presidential limousine at the time of the assassination? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; because we were able to determine the speed of the camera, and thereby accurately determine the length of time it takes for a specific number of frames to run through the camera at this 18.3 frames per second, and having located these frame positions in the street, we took the farthest distance point we had in the Zapruder film which was frame 161 through frame 313. This was found to run elapsed time from the film standpoint which runs at 18.3 frames a second, runs for a total of 8.3 seconds. This distance is 136.1 feet, and this can be calculated then to 11.2 miles per hour ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That pretty well cinches it in my book. ------------------------------------------- Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; after positioning the car in the street at the specific locations and making the movies with the Zapruder, Nix, and Muchmore cameras with the car running at 11 miles an hour on the route, I then went to the sixth-floor --------------------------- A little icing on the cake! Would it be "too repetitious" to state that additional key('s) have again been provided? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 Frank,I think your close, according to Gary Mack. Here is his email response to my post: Chris, What do I think about your post #55? I think you don't know how to do photo interpretation. Here's how I would approach this simple math problem: The conversion of miles per hour to feet/second is 1.4667. So 11.3 mph (the average speed of the limo on Elm as established by the FBI using the Z, Nix and Muchmore films) equates to 16.57 feet. Using the 5 frame sequence you chose (161 to 166) is 5/18 of a second or .27 seconds. So the distance the limo traveled should be 16.57 x .27 = 4.48 feet. What is the distance from the front bumper to the back side of the right front tire? Well, you can look that up but I think you'll find it's about 4 feet. Don't quit your day job, Chris. Gary Gary needs to take a look at the W/C documents supplied for frame 161/166. (Photo Provided) He should notice that according to these documents, someone (I believe the SAME FBI that used the Z, Nix and Muchmore films) determined the limo traveled a distance of .9 ft between frames 161 and 166. Sounds to me like all 3 films used fuzzy math. So which is correct Gary? The film or the WC? If the film is correct, the WHOLE reenactment figures are down the toilet. Just as Tom Purvis has shown us. If the WC is correct, the film is phony. I vote for #3. Reenactment and the film are both phony. Pertaining to photo interpretation. Well, yes photos can be interpreted, but the MATH NEVER LIES. chris At risk of hopefully improving on my "credibility" problem, perhaps the following is of some help. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0464a.htm Nope! No help there! http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0464b.htm Some help here! But then again, few things are better than seeing an "original", especially when it does not pass the "common sense" test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 Not an original, but certainly better than anything seen to date. (except of course here) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 And poor ole Mr. West was under the misguided assumption that not only did the WC not know what they wanted, but that they also did not know what they were doing! Mr. West, it was my pleasure to give you a laugh or two in your elder years, and hopefully the visits to your home and our conversations will be, to some extent, posted here for all of future history to read. Certainly did not take you too long to "catch on" once a few items of relevance were revealed. 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