Chris Davidson

Hi Robert, This is as simplified as I can explain it. Mostly, I stay away from the photos, films and testimony for now, because the math eventually should take care of it. imo Reverse engineering the WC creation takes time, but those interested should already have a clearer understanding of how they went about it. chris

By the way, keep in mind that 3.27ft vertically = 103.9ft horizontally @ 3.15 degrees. chris

I supplied this a few posts ago with the red box entry blacked out. WC determination of JFK's head height above the pavement. Since the TSBD 6th floor was determined to be 60.7ft in vertical elevation, someone realized very early on there was a major problem. chris

David, Before I get to far ahead, I want to go back and show you what a little true math reveals. Station # 3+29.2 = frame 161 according to CE884, which is 79.2ft down Elm from Station# 2+50. Station# 2+50 being in direct alignment with the 6th floor snipers nest. And coincidentally, that is where the slope of Elm begins. We know the elevation at Station# 2+50 is 429.70 You can now use the equation for a 3.15 degree slope @79.2ft. 79.2ft/31.75ft = 2.50 elevation change. Elevation 429.70 - 2.50 = elevation 427.20 And, when compared to the elevation listed on CE884 for frame161, there is an elevation difference between true elevation 4+27.20 and WC elevation listing of 4+29.25 = 2.05ft chris P.S. The height of JFK's head measured above the street in all surveys was the same and more than 2.05ft

David, Now you're starting to think like the WC. They did throw in another variable to help with the scheme. It would be the height of JFK's head above the pavement. This allowed them some leeway with the shift in vertical/horizontal/trajectory ratios/distances. chris

I suggest you compare this to the entries for frame 161 on WC CE884. That would be the document I have implored others to pay attention to, in the past. chris

Once you know the vertical/horizontal ratio then it would also help to know where that 3.15 degree grade begins. Elevation and Station# attached. chris

You are now starting to understand your own topic "trajectories" in relationship to the rest of the master equation. chris

David, Start with it simplified at 1ft for conversion purposes. 1ft/31.75ft = .03149 = 3.15%. chris

David, 12" = 1foot. Ratio of 10inches vertical to 26.4ft horizontal. Convert that ratio in terms of ft/ft Or, if you like, the equation would be: Vertical change (rise) / Horizontal (run) x 100 = grade % chris P.S. You now possess one key part of the equation.

More help. chris

Thank you for asking the question David. Why 31.75ft? See attachment. Converted = 3.15 degrees chris

David, The assassination is one big math equation. The WC possesses the master solution. To arrive 30ft past 313, you have to adjust for it, up the street. Here is a piece of that solution broken down for you. Shaneyfelt testimony states the vertical/elevation change from frame 161-166 was 10 inches. 10inches/12 inches = .833 .833 x 31.75 = 26.44ft. He also states the limo averaged 11.2 mph from frame 161-313. CE 884 shows the limo traveling .9ft between frames 161-166. 11.2 mph in terms of 5 frames elapsed would equal 4.5ft traveled. 4.5ft-.9ft = 3.6ft missing 26.44 + 3.6ft = 30.04ft. There is one question that should be asked of me about the the math equation I have provided. Feel free to ask it. Understanding the above concept is key to gaining a better grip on what the WC was up to. chris

Closest comparison to the previous posting. Frames 210-225 15 frames - 14.9ft traveled laterally and .82ft (9.84in) traveled vertically. chris

Shaneyfelt describes a 10 inch vertical movement (using the chalk mark) from frame 161-166. CE884 shows an elevation change of .05ft for those same frames or .05 x 12 inches = .6inch. The discrepancy being a difference in multiplier of 10/.6 = 16.667 If you take the multiplier and multiply it by the lateral distance (Station# difference) from frames 161-166 or .9ft, you will arrive at 15ft. chris P.S. This also leaves you with a limo traveling at 2.24 mph from frames 161-166 and a frame difference of 16.667- 5frames=12 frames. Which, when compared to the original survey notes, (frame 168 data becomes 161) and (166 data becomes 171) the survey switch accounts for 12 frames, as 161 and 166 were never surveyed in.

Blair, I didn't take it as an argument. Those are valid points to bring up. I'm trying to reveal more of the methods used to "hide in plain sight". chris

Which brings me to this next obfuscation. What is wrong with Shaneyfelt's description and the elevation data from CE 884. chris

James, I'm not determining when a shot would have occurred on film. I'm trying to show how the location of a shooter could have been obfuscated by the powers that be. chris P.S Your comment about the frame 349 area is rather interesting.

According to the description, this was taken from atop the County Records building. chris

Slant measurement, Frame 313 to County Records Building using 15.8 degrees intersecting the 6th floor. chris P.S. When Drommer is scaled to the correct size, my measurements are applicable.

The lines intersect at frame 313. chris

The inset is from the HSCA. The plat is from the HSCA created by Drommer and Associates. chris

I will start this topic with a response from James Gordon to Bill Charleston in Bill's topic " Solving the JFK assassination shooting mystery". "Actually Bill, your previous post does not clear things up a bit. Your thesis is that John Connally was wounded after the head shot. You use a variety of sources to support your claim. My point, which you do not appear to want to address is if he receive his wound at that point then:-the source of that shot would not be the TSBD. The wound John Connally received ran down the outside of his 5th rib. If you are in agreement that, that, is exactly how Connally was wounded THEN because of the position of the car at Z 325 and the position of John Connally within the car, the source of the shot would actually be the Records building. If you are in agreement that the source of the wound to John Connally was other than the TSBD then we are in agreement. However if it is your position that when John Connally was wounded at Z 325 the source of the shot was the TSBD, then you are completely wrong. Geometry proves you wrong. Acoustics play no part here. It matters not one iota what the acoustics say on this point. There is no geometrical way that at Z325 a line can be drawn, from the TSBD, to accurately simulate the wound John Connally received. The only way the wound to John Connally can be accurately simulated is if the source of that wound is directed from the Records building and not the TSBD." chris

I'll run the scenario for you. 11.2mph average = 16.464ft per sec /18.3fps = .899ft per frame. .899ft per frame x 5 frames = 4.498ft 4.498- .9ft (CE884 161-166) = 3.598ft difference. 30ft/3.598ft = 8.33ft 152 frames 161-313 152/18.3 = 8.30 seconds Relationship Yes. Coincidence No. chris