Chris Davidson

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)

Doug Horne excerpt: "...1) those altering the Zapruder film at “Hawkeyeworks” on Sunday, November 24, 1963 were extremely pressed for time, and could only do “so much” in the twelve-to-fourteen hour period available to them; (2) the technology available with which to alter films in 1963 (both the traveling matte, and aerial imaging) had limitations—there was no digital CGI technology at that time—and therefore, I believe the forgers were limited to basic capabilities like blacking out the exit wound in the right-rear of JFK’s head; painting a false exit wound on JFK’s head on the top and right side of his skull (both of these seem to have been accomplished through “aerial imaging”—that is, animation cells overlaid “in space” on top of the projected images of the frames being altered, using a customized optical printer with an animation stand, and a process camera to re-photograph each self-matting, altered frame);" Something like this. Quite distinct, just as the extant frame is.

The "Shell" game created by the WC and carried on by the HSCA. (Liaison- Gerald Ford) imo

FWIW: https://manuscriptservice.com/SN/index.htm#MENU

Would love to have viewed those still photos:

There is an alternative variation related to 8°

Moving Connally leftward, I believe Knott's Lab was trying to show something like this alignment. So why not use what the WC provides. JBC was approx 1" lower in height (WC testimony) sitting in the limo, than JFK was. Use your imagination for the downward path. Much more faith in Dr. Shaw than the WC.

Those pesky boxes. The man in the gif is placing a pylon at would equate to the limo front at extant z235. This would put JFK's physical position in the limo 15.1ft back from there. If you care to look at CE884 entry for z235, it will show you a station # of 396.8 15.1 ft back from 396.8 = 381.7 The WC determined the SBT occurred at station # 381.3 = 4/10ft difference in placement. Robert Shaw said No No, there was a Connally shot at approx extant z235/236 according to his viewing of the extant zfilm and his experience with bullet trajectories through the body. But, from the west end of the TSBD. The final WC method was to survey JFK's actual physical location in CE884. Do you understand how using the limo front and JFK's physical location in the limo would confuse the truth as to not enough time in between for those shots? PS. The WC also documented a shot that was at approx extant z203.

I find it more interesting to piece together the WC BS story and then use it against them: