Chris Davidson

15 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

This might help:

 

David,

I have a little more to do on this span z133-166, then I can move onto PositionA again.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/19f7ymKP0rgx6qvO8gArgPhPZX4NEROct/view?usp=sharing

This might help:

Stationary objects are my constant, such as the Stemmons sign support post. See gif below.

Frame counts can be very deceiving. See gif below.

The only instantaneous speed I'm interested in, is that which is reflective of frame removal. See gif below.

On 6/13/2019 at 12:56 PM, Chris Davidson said:

This leads up to, but not including the .9ft jump from z161-z166.

24.52+ 5.625 = 30.145ft / 9.125 sec (167 Towner frames@18.3 frames per sec) = 3.3ft per sec

This quite closely matches the speed of the limo at CE884 Z161-Z166 = 3.294ft per sec.

In other words, the entry for z161-z166 is a major remnant of the (3.29ft per sec = 2.24mph) adjustment  being applied to the overall equation.

 

 

 

Working somewhat backwards for a match:

Z166 = Station# 330.1 - 5.4ft = Z161 Station# 324.7 -  Z133 = Station# 299.0 = 25.7ft (28 frames)  = 11.42mph
Extant zfilm plotted133-166 = 13.44mph
13.44 -11.42 = 2.02mph
15.68mph - 11.42 = 4.26 - 2.02 = 2.24mph
CE884 Z161-166 = .9ft/5frames = .18ft per frame x 18.3 = 3.29ft per sec = 2.24mph

On 6/15/2019 at 1:58 PM, Chris Davidson said:

10" drop / 12" = .833... x 18.3(vert to horiz) = 15.25ft + 5.4ft (5 frames @ 1.08ft per sec=13.44mph) = 20.65ft

 

 

20.65ft was the horizontal sync for the vertical range of JFK's head above the pavement (52.78inches and the 39.24inches = 3.27ft used in CE884)

52.78" - 39.24" = 13.54 inches /12 = 1.12833ft.... x 18.3ft(Elm St slope conversion 3.13°) = 20.6485ft = the link below.

That would be an exact match for 43 of 48 frames @ .4802ft per frame.

Of course the 13.54" consisted of the 10" drop + 3.54" = (3.54/12 = .295ft x 18.3ft = 5.3985ft) = 20.648ft

On 6/15/2019 at 1:58 PM, Chris Davidson said:

 

10" drop / 12" = .833... x 18.3(vert to horiz) = 15.25ft + 5.4ft (5 frames @ 1.08ft per sec=13.44mph) = 20.65ft - .9ft (bogus distance traveled CE884 z161-z166) = 19.75ft

 

 

The above equation uses the extant z film(z154-z166) for the 5.4ft distance (5 frames @ 1.08ft per sec=13.44mph).

This does not include the .9ft lost from the true speed for a distance of 5.4 + .9 = 6.3ft.

Look back to the 1.166 ratio to connect the difference:

6.3/1.166 = 5.4ft

5 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

The 1.1664... ratio can now be applied to the frame rate for syncing.

48fps / 1.1664.. = 41.15frames x .4802ft per frame = 19.76ft per sec

48- 41.15 = 6.85frames = 7 whole frames =

The difference in frame count between the two CE884's physical location for Station# 3+29.2 = z161 and z168 = 7 frames.

 

Continuing with 20.65ft:

The other CE884 gave us a range of 5 frames z161-z166.

Converted from 43 of 48 frames/1sec

43 x .4802ft per frame = 20.648ft

21 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

In case you had forgotten what matches 19.75ft:

10" drop / 12" = .833... x 18.3(vert to horiz) = 15.25ft + 5.4ft (5 frames @ 1.08ft per sec=13.44mph) = 20.65ft - .9ft (bogus distance traveled CE884 z161-z166) = 19.75ft

13.44mph x 1.47ft per sec = 19.75ft per sec

Hopefully the WC/Myers synchro from above and at street level is becoming clearer for you.

This .9ft remnant is very instrumental when put back into its proper context to fit the official narrative:

19.7592 + .9 = 20.6592ft

20.6592ft/23.0472ft = .896/1 ratio

1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

The 1.1664... ratio can now be applied to the frame rate for syncing.

48fps / 1.1664.. = 41.15frames x .4802ft per frame = 19.76ft per sec

48- 41.15 = 6.85frames = 7 whole frames =

The difference in frame count between the two CE884's physical location for Station# 3+29.2 = z161 and z168 = 7 frames.

 

btw,

The final CE884 version reduced the .9ft span from 7 to 5 frames.

This was to sync with the final CE884 specs of z161-z313 (136.1ft traveled @8.3 sec@18.3frames per sec.

The ratio being the same as reducing 48 frames down to 43

43/48 = .8958/1

136.1/8.3 = 16.397ft per sec / 18.3frames per sec = .896ft per frame

Both equating to 16.397 / 1.47 = 11.154mph

Which in turn, circles us back to our 8% solution starting from 18.3, both in terms of frame rate and Elm St slope conversion.

18.3 x 1.08 = 19.76
19.76 x 1.08 = 21.34
21.34 x 1.08 = 23.0472

16 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Not only is it wise to keep the distance differences in mind, but the ratio's as well.

Once the 8% squeeze/spread is applied, the ratio of the limo length becomes:

23.0472/19.759 = 1.166/1

This ratio equals the limo length to vert (1ft per 18.3horizontal ft.) Elm St slope ratio:

21.34/18.3 = 1.166/1

 

The 1.1664... ratio can now be applied to the frame rate for syncing.

48fps / 1.1664.. = 41.15frames x .4802ft per frame = 19.76ft per sec

48- 41.15 = 6.85frames = 7 whole frames =

The difference in frame count between the two CE884's physical location for Station# 3+29.2 = z161 and z168 = 7 frames.

23 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Difference in limo (spread and squeeze) distance = 23.0472ft - 19.759ft = 3.288ft per sec

Not only is it wise to keep the distance differences in mind, but the ratio's as well.

Once the 8% squeeze/spread is applied, the ratio of the limo length becomes:

23.0472/19.759 = 1.166/1

This ratio equals the limo length to vert (1ft per 18.3horizontal ft.) Elm St slope ratio:

21.34/18.3 = 1.166/1

On 6/13/2019 at 12:56 PM, Chris Davidson said:

The difference between inside radius and outside radius was 24.52ft.

Added was the Towner gap of 5.625ft (In the end, I think they "powers that be" used  5.5ft)

This leads up to, but not including the .9ft jump from z161-z166.

24.52+ 5.625 = 30.145ft / 9.125 sec (167 Towner frames@18.3 frames per sec) = 3.3ft per sec

This quite closely matches the speed of the limo at CE884 Z161-Z166 = 3.294ft per sec.

In other words, the entry for z161-z166 is a major remnant of the (3.29ft per sec = 2.24mph) adjustment  being applied to the overall equation.

 

 

 

Retarding the same distance.

21 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Speaking of limo exercises and the Myers 8% solution:

21.34ft / 1.08(squeeze) = 19.759ft per sec 

In case you had forgotten what matches 19.75ft:

10" drop / 12" = .833... x 18.3(vert to horiz) = 15.25ft + 5.4ft (5 frames @ 1.08ft per sec=13.44mph) = 20.65ft - .9ft (bogus distance traveled CE884 z161-z166) = 19.75ft

13.44mph x 1.47ft per sec = 19.75ft per sec

Hopefully the WC/Myers synchro from above and at street level is becoming clearer for you.

On 5/10/2016 at 2:54 PM, Chris Davidson said:

The .56ft elevation difference CE560 coupled with the bogus distance traveled .9ft from z168-z171(CE884 final plat) or z161-z166(CE884 WC final) and added to the difference between (Time/Life determination of shot at extant 207 and FBI/SS determination) 10.2ft farther west down Elm St when converted, equals a total distance of:

10.24ft + .9ft + 10.2ft = 21.34ft

This distance equals the exact length of the limo, provided from the WC document in post #3.

256.1" / 12 = 21.34ft

In case you had forgotten what constitutes the limo length. 

On 6/13/2019 at 12:56 PM, Chris Davidson said:

The difference between inside radius and outside radius was 24.52ft.

Added was the Towner gap of 5.625ft (In the end, I think they "powers that be" used  5.5ft)

This leads up to, but not including the .9ft jump from z161-z166.

24.52+ 5.625 = 30.145ft / 9.125 sec (167 Towner frames@18.3 frames per sec) = 3.3ft per sec

This quite closely matches the speed of the limo at CE884 Z161-Z166 = 3.294ft per sec.

In other words, the entry for z161-z166 is a major remnant of the (3.29ft per sec = 2.24mph) adjustment  being applied to the overall equation.

 

 

 

Difference in limo (spread and squeeze) distance = 23.0472ft - 19.759ft = 3.288ft per sec

On 4/3/2016 at 8:33 AM, Chris Davidson said:

This is a partial equation for the few who are interested. The existing pieces have been provided except for the final piece of 19.756ft.

517.5 - 21.34 = 496.16 - 465.3 = 30.86 or (30.856) - .9 - 10.2 = 19.76 or (19.756)

Speaking of limo exercises and the Myers 8% solution:

21.34ft / 1.08(squeeze) = 19.759ft per sec 

On 2/20/2016 at 12:47 PM, Chris Davidson said:

The equation broken down for those who don't want to do the conversion:

15.116ft- Distance from limo front to JFK in limo

divide

12 - Total frames from 154-166

 

=1.259666…. ft per frame

x

18.3 - Frames per sec

 

= 23.05ft traveled in 1 second @ 18.3 frames per sec

divide

48 frames per sec true camera speed at this point

 

= .48 ft per frame

x 5 frames (z161-166)

 

= 2.4ft = distance between JFK and Connally in limo.

= 5 true consecutive frames from a 48fps film.

Added on edit: I use 1.47ft per sec (rounded off from 1.466) as my multiplier for mph conversions.

chris

Speaking of limo exercises and the Myers 8% solution:

21.34ft x 1.08(spread) = 23.0472ft per sec

On 6/12/2019 at 12:26 PM, Chris Davidson said:

His total distance traveled for Towner's film = 86.38ft as he used an inside radius = drivers side rear tire as his marker.

The distance traveled using (JFK within the limo) an outside radius, as the marker = 110.9ft

.9ft = the total distance traveled Z161-166 from CE884 WC final version.

108% is rather interesting moving forward!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The difference between inside radius and outside radius was 24.52ft.

Added was the Towner gap of 5.625ft (In the end, I think they "powers that be" used  5.5ft)

This leads up to, but not including the .9ft jump from z161-z166.

24.52+ 5.625 = 30.145ft / 9.125 sec (167 Towner frames@18.3 frames per sec) = 3.3ft per sec

This quite closely matches the speed of the limo at CE884 Z161-Z166 = 3.294ft per sec.

In other words, the entry for z161-z166 is a major remnant of the (3.29ft per sec = 2.24mph) adjustment  being applied to the overall equation.

It would have been easier to give us the distance traveled between the Towner end and the Z beginning.

That would be 5.625ft.

Sorry, but 15 frames @ 5.625ft using 18.3frames per sec = a limo traveling 4.66mph.

When the Martin film (an 8mm camera)@18.8frames per sec is plotted (16 frames) through the Towner/Z gap the limo is traveling at 11.33mph.

This coincides with the average consisting of  the last 20 Towner frames and the first 16Z frames.

7.78mph + 14.88mph = 22.66mph/2 = 11.33mph

Added on edit: 6.18 frames (11.33mph - 18.3frames per sec) would have elapsed to cover the gap, not the 15 + 118 =133 that you were led to believe.

20 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Now refer to the distance per frame traveled from CE884 z161-z166 = .18ft per frame traveled

The WC difference comes in the span of z133-z161 = 30.2ft (Station# 299- 329.2)

30.2 /.18 = 167.77 vs 167 =  1extra frame

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Slice the limo up and integrate it with Myers and CE884.

21.34ft/.18 = 118.55 frames (+/- 1frame)

12 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

It is my impression, as Myers did not represent one of the limo measurements correctly, that anything he posits should be taken as an impression, not necessarily exact. 

 Pamela,

That's not the way it works. imo

He specifically states exactness in regards to his Epipolar multi-film synchronization project.

The limo measurement inaccuracy would be just another in a long line of adjustments to have his work sync with the WC results.

When you have two projects that use incorrect info, but result in the same outcome, that is a big no no.

As an example, how many 8mm camera's film at a frame rate some 26% faster than (18fps) than their factory specs dictate.

Both on the same day, filming the same event.

When the correct limo length is used in ongoing calculations, some rather revealing insights occur.

Do you think that Myers retarding (keeping eastward) the limo distance 30.92ft at the front end would have any relationship to the distance of 30.856ft at the back end?

Since the limo length was used as part of the equation which ultimately led to the distance between the (WC documented) Altgen's and extant Z313 shot, would it be appropriate to apply the Myers % adjustment accordingly?

On 3/26/2018 at 8:34 PM, Chris Davidson said:

Let's use Myers 108% manipulation to sync his distance difference with CE884:

79.2ft x 1.08% = 85.536ft 

85.536ft - 79.2ft = 6.336ft

6.336ft - .9ft = 5.436ft difference

Now refer to the distance per frame traveled from CE884 z161-z166 = .18ft per frame traveled

The WC difference comes in the span of z133-z161 = 30.2ft (Station# 299- 329.2)

30.2ft  x .18ft = 5.436ft

How many frames might we be dealing with for that equation:

30.2 /.18 = 167.77

 

 

Myers plat enlarging to 108% can be used to sync his work with the incorrect (CE884 WC final version) Station# 3+30.1 = Z166

His total distance traveled for Towner's film = 86.38ft as he used an inside radius = drivers side rear tire as his marker.

The distance traveled using (JFK within the limo) an outside radius, as the marker = 110.9ft

86.38/1.08 = 79.98ft

110.9 - 79.98ft = 30.92ft

Push forward to Z133 @ Station# 2+99.0 + 30.92ft = Station# 3+29.92

The link spells out the frame distance traveled for z161-z166 @ .18ft per frame

Station# 3+29.92 + .18ft(1frame) = Station# 3+30.1 = (CE884 WC final version) Station# 3+30.1 = Z166

Myers uses 167 frames as his Towner total.

The extra frame needed comes via the bottom of that link which states:

Now refer to the distance per frame traveled from CE884 z161-z166 = .18ft per frame traveled

The WC difference comes in the span of z133-z161 = 30.2ft (Station# 299- 329.2)

30.2 /.18 = 167.77 vs 167 =  1extra frame

Or just take Myers landing at 3+29.92 - Z133(3+29.2) = .72ft + .18ft (1frame) = .9ft

.9ft = the total distance traveled Z161-166 from CE884 WC final version.

108% is rather interesting moving forward!!!!

On 6/6/2019 at 9:51 PM, Chris Bristow said:

I was very suspicious of the extreme keystone effect in the Barnes image and the fact that the lamppost is near the edge of the image while the Costella panorama took the lamppost image from frame 270 in which the lamppost is centered in the frame. Now I think I can put my keystone concerns aside because those effects would cause the lamppost to lean more to the left not to the right as in the Z film. That lends support to the Costella theory and so I think I can say that keystoning( both vertical and horizontal) is not the cause of the lamppost anomaly.
 
  What I did find is that the difference in the leaning lampposts between the Barnes and Costella image is only about 3/4 of one degree. The red line on the lamppost in the Costella panorama was slightly off and added to its rightward lean. With a small difference of 3/4 of one degree it becomes harder to rule out some of the subtle camera distortions like pincushion.
 

So in the end much of what I found supports The lamppost theory but because the error is only 3/4 of a degree I can't be sure of anything. It looks to me like  the Barnes image has not been pincushion corrected and that would cause the lamppost to lean slightly farther left. That may be the cause of the anomaly.  But because the effect is so small you would need to reproduce the photos with the same camera.
 

Chris,

I support Dr.Costella's theory too.