Jump to content
The Education Forum

Chris Davidson

Members
  • Posts

    4,346
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Chris Davidson

  1. 1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

    Height and angle.

    Distance next.

    48641873168_0f70a69821_o.png

    I arrived at the 30ft height this way:

    Elev. of Dal-Tex building base = 430.8ft (430.2 + .3 (SniperNest to TSBD Corner)   + .3 (TSBD Corner to Dal-Tex)

    Drommer converted back to West: 430.2 - 100.4 = 329.8 + 161.1 = 490.9

    2nd floor window sill = 20ft = (approx height of the TSBD 2nd floor)

    Elev 450.8 - 423.07(shot#1-SS/FBI Dec-1963 plat) = 27.73ft - 3.27ft(CE884 elev difference) = 24.46ft.

    30 - 24.46 = 5.54ft = Rifle barrel end above 2nd floor window sill.

     

          

  2. 1" = 10ft

    Base measurement match: See previous post.

    The LOS from elev. 423.07 = Shot #1 labeled on the SS/FBI Dec-1963 plat.

    Richard Sprague used z226 back to the Dal-Tex building as his LOS, I just shortened it to elev 423.07(approx z218) and ran his LOS back to the Dal-Tex.

    It intersects approx 30ft from the Dal-Tex corner.

    48642069268_7e31ca8dd0_o.png

     

  3. On 8/27/2019 at 4:14 PM, Chris Davidson said:

     

    Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we did. We placed three targets, which were head and shoulder silhouettes, at distances of 175 feet, 240 feet, and 265 feet, and these distances are slant ranges from the window ledge of a tower which is about 30 feet high. We used three firers in an attempt to obtain hits on all three targets within as short a time interval as possible.

    Height and angle.

    Distance next.

    48641873168_0f70a69821_o.png

  4. Ray,

    That's fine. I'll just continue on, to where a/the back shot came from.

    Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; we did. We placed three targets, which were head and shoulder silhouettes, at distances of 175 feet, 240 feet, and 265 feet, and these distances are slant ranges from the window ledge of a tower which is about 30 feet high. We used three firers in an attempt to obtain hits on all three targets within as short a time interval as possible.

  5. 1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

    Before the incline, the back hole was .75" above the throat hole.

    After the incline, the back hole is below the throat hole by .75 - 1.18 = -.43"

     

    Did you happen to run .43" through a run/rise calc at 7"?

    Then deduct 3.13° for the reverse Elm St slope.

    3.52° - 3.13° = .39° = 0deg 23.4minutes

    And, match it back to a CE884 frame # from the bridge handrail(overpass).

    z210-z222 = 2/12 = .1666min per frame

    1.4min/ .1666min per frame = 8.4 frames

    z210 + 8.4 frames = z218.4

     

     

     

     

     

  6. Where does 20deg50.4min align to on CE884?

    It lies between z210-z222.

    12 frames with a difference of (1°11' = 71minutes) between them.

    71min/12frames = 5.91min per frame

    20deg50.4min - 20°23min (z222) = 27.4min

    27.4min/5.91min per frame = 4.63 frames

    z222= 4.63 = z217.37

    First shot determination from SS/FBI- Dec/1963 plat = Station# 381.3

    Station# z222 = 385.9

    385.9 - 381.3 = 4.6ft

    Limo speed z210-z222 =  12.5ft per 12 frames = 1.04ft per frame

    4.6ft / 1.04ft per frame = 4.42 frames

    z222 - 4.42 frames = z 217.58

     

    48601902951_178f020ab5_o.png

     

     

  7. Once that was taken into account, the real difference of throat hole higher than back hole of .43" could be deducted from the 2.665" back hole above throat hole measurement.

    -.43" + 2.665" = 2.235" back hole above throat hole.

    As you can see, quite close to the simplified equation of 5.75 - 3.54 = 2.21"

    2.235" rise through a 7" neck/throat run = 17.71° + 3.13° (Elm St slope) = 20.84° = 20deg50.4min

     

  8. The contradiction is a difference of .875” lower on the back. Imo

    See if this is close as I progress.

    Subtract that from my original back height mark of 61.75”

    61.75 - .875 = 60.875” above the ground

    60.875” (back) - 60.125” (throat) = .75” (back above throat).

  9. 2 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

    Description (and of course, some math) to follow:

    Shirt.gif

    The longer explanation:

    I encourage you to try this on your own. These are my results as I am the same height 72.5” as JFK was. My wife took the measurements.

    Stand up straight.

    Find a dress shirt with a 1.5” collar measured from the back of the neck. Button it up.

    Measure down from the collar top 5.75” and mark it on a piece of tape that sticks to the shirt.

    Put the shirt on and button it up.

    Measure from ground to mark.

    Distance from ground = 61.75”

    Measure to the top button center and subtract .875” and mark it on a piece of tape that sticks to the shirt.

    Distance from ground = 60.125”

    61.75 - 60.125 = 1.625”

    Remove shirt, button it up and suspend it by pulling out on the shoulder areas to get it level and square.

    Have a helper take their index fingers and press through the front/back of the shirt using the tape marks.

    My marks become the same height.

    Note the contradiction with the gif.

     

  10. On 12/26/2018 at 2:02 PM, Chris Davidson said:

    44660305970_7b76cc9af8_o.png

    If you are not interested in the forthcoming(more exact) explanation, but want the abbreviated version(gets you quite close) do this:

    Use the 5.75" measurement down from the collar top, from there, move that mark up 3.54" take that difference of 2.21" and run it through a "run/rise" calculator using a torso of 7".

    Add (3.13° - Elm St. slope)  and match that angle to a CE884 frame number.

     

     

  11. Directly from the "Setup a Shell Corporation" playbook.

    The scenario sounds a lot like a president who had his lawyer hide illegal payments to his mistresses.

    Remember the "unindicted co-conspirator".

    Instead we have Indyke (Epstein's attorney for decades) working his magic:

    "Epstein only served 13 months in the Palm Beach County Stockade, where he occupied a private wing and had liberal work-release privileges of 12 hours per day, six days per week.
    Indyke's signature appears on the work release program agreement as Epstein's employer, according to the document reviewed by Yahoo Finance. Further requests for documents, including the required letter of employment specified as part of the work release agreement, were denied because of an active criminal investigation.
    For his work-release, Epstein worked at The Florida Science Foundation, his not-for-profit that said it aimed to “to finance scientific research on academic, organizational and individual levels,” according to the organization’s articles of incorporation. Records show that Indyke registered The Florida Science Foundation in November 2007, just after he signed the non-prosecution agreement.
    Epstein paid the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office $128,000 between 2008 and 2009 through The Florida Science Foundation, according to WPTV 5, citing public records. Yahoo Finance’s request for those documents was unsuccessful. A spokeswoman for the sheriff’s office said they were part of an “active and ongoing criminal [and] internal investigation.”
    The Florida Science Foundation dissolved on September 25, 2009, after failing to file an annual report, records show.
    While Epstein spent 13 months in the Palm Beach county stockade, Indyke made at least 38 visits to see him, according to a jail log. According to a 2010 deposition of Epstein's pilot, Larry Visoski, he believes it was Indyke who called him on the phone, saying Epstein wanted him to visit the county jail. Indeed, Visoski made many visits shortly after Epstein began his county jail sentence."

    No conspiring what-so-ever, all in a days work.

     

     

  12. 3 hours ago, Darrell Curtis said:

    The term conspiracy theorist raises a question that never seems to be asked. What is the term for a conspiracy that is verifiable, and those who speak of and believe in these conspiracies? Would this be a conspiracy factist? Along with the derisive, derogatory term "conspiracy theorist" often comes the idea that *all*  conspiracies are false and believing in them is delusional. But that obviously isn't the case when we consider the Gulf of Tonkin, the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, MK-Ultra, Operation Mockingbird, and my personal favorite "Et tu, Brute?" Apparently that was just something Shakespeare invented for entertainment purposes.

    It's frustrating and tiresome that so often the words "science" and "scientific" (among others, alone and in combinations) are bandied about as if they automatically give credibility or legitimacy where it isn't necessarily the case.

    Darrell, expanding somewhat further:

    48498470532_89dacfeded_o.png

×
×
  • Create New...