Chris Davidson

Chris

Refer back a few posts to CE884 with blue boxes. The elevation difference between PositionA and extant z161 = 2.72ft The elevation difference between PositionA and extant z313 = 10.22ft The elevation difference between extant z161 and z313 = 7.5ft Elevation of PositionA minus the ( elevation difference between extant z161 and z313) = 2.72ft = elevation difference between PositionA and extant z161. Would anyone care to inform Walton and the rest what the WC was hiding with this math? I'll give you a hint: .22ft difference = 4.02ft

They make perfect sense to about the 1% who are intelligent enough to follow. What's wrong, even when spoon-fed, are you having troubles ingesting information?

Per the previous post, you should keep this in mind as we are talking about end points (Apples to Apples), in relation to elevation and street distance syncing.

The station# that is PositionA along JFK's path = 280.3 (inside blue box) The location of the initial data input for CE884 = Station# 329.2 (blue arrow) That difference in distance = 48.9ft. This equals the same distance from CE884 extant z255-z313. (Apples to Apples) The elevation difference is almost the same, a difference of .01ft x 18.3ft = .183ft = 2.196 inches

Establishing Towner's position becomes very useful for measuring times and distances. Primarily in regards to StationC and PositionA. The first spot to establish is PositionA. From Towner location (red x) traversing JFK's position within limo (line joining the + sign) to structure corner. Notice the left side (blue) vertical line. It intersects PositionA labeled above lane stripe and where PositionA would reside on JFK's path.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ev4WTYOzerUp_BmUdl9u4vR0-ofSwdFz/view?usp=sharing Adjusted the pin-cushion affect and it's much better now. Tina Towner would be behind "pink shirt man" on the same LOS in the extant zfilm = the guy who is between the two blue lines.

Looks like they've changed that curbline over the years. ??? Can't use that for aligning old and new. Corner of the County Records building and the circular fountain wall appear not to have changed. Will repost the above link with man in new position, in a little while. Sorry about that.

That signal light according to Robert West was 2ft in from the curb and aligned with the corner of the County Records building. Plotted from the z pedestal, it would look something like this. The red "X" would represent Towner.

Sized and superimposing one of my video frames over the extant zfilm. The man aligned with the signal light behind him, would be in the approx position of Towner in the extant zfilm. btw, My video does possess pin-cushioning if that is not obvious to you.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1v5xYeoNMgqfewbq_PD6i5JOVOWrXbsKF/view?usp=sharing This video I took from the pedestal, using a B/H 414 camera on zoom, should help orientate Tina Towner's position when viewed by Z. Locate the wheelchair relief,(curb cutout) in both the photo above and the video. Take notice of the man crossing the street as he traverses the curb cutout.

Unfortunately, Sprague had Tina Towner's position wrong by approx 10.2ft (sounds familiar), when Sprague is scaled and superimposed over the WC final May1964 plat. When rectified, we'll discover some very interesting connections to the Elm St turn. 1inch = 10ft

The filming position of Tina Towner. She was aligned along the same LOS as Station# 2+50 = the SE corner of the 6th floor snipers window. Approx 3-4 ft out from the curb.

Moving forward toward Tina Towner land, it's a good idea to keep in mind where the source material came from. Tom Purvis via Robert West. So, when someone such as Dale Myers uses the drivers side rear tire and starts using measurements(DISTANCE) within an arc, the red light should flash. Or, you can remain in the dark and never see it.

Eddy, If you understand the previous two posts which include both CE884 versions, you're well on your way to comprehending the under-handedness of that, which we refer to as the WC.

btw, The distance of z161-z166 = .9ft = 2.24mph This 2.24mph = (1/6 frame removal) reduction related to the manipulation of frames also appears in the same z168-z186 span on the WC CE884 final plat (orange colored version). If you discard the z168 entry and work from z171-z186 the result is: First, you took 3 frames from 18 = 1/6 reduction. This resulted in 15 frames @ 20.7ft traveled 20.7/15 = 1.38ft per frame x 18.3fps = 25.254ft per sec = 17.179mph - 2.24mph = 14.939mph

Eddy, Before I answer your questions, it's very important to understand the most basic aspect of this concept. Everything discussed and thereafter starts with WC document CE884, entry z161-z166. The extant limo from z161-z166 is moving at 13.44mph. That is 1.08ft per frame. The WC CE884 document equates each frame from z161-z166 as .18ft per frame traveled, not 1.08ft per frame, for a total of .9ft traveled for those five frames. CE884 should reflect the appropriate distance in accordance with the amount of frames entered. In this instance, the span lacks 4.5ft of limo distance traveled. Do you believe this presents a problem? If you don't, then you might ask yourself, "Is it a coincidence that the total distance traveled in those five frames (.9ft) = the overall average of .9ft per frame traveled for the entire data span of z161-z313 = Shaneyfelt's testimony = 11.2mph

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ve0_Hbu57-dN6_J13YGT2WNNnCurtgxa/view I encourage everyone to look at this comparative video. The top is the extant film. The bottom is reflective of this equation: 1296 = 486 x 2.66666 (48/18) 354.6666666 = 133 x 2.66666 (48/18) 941.33333 = (1296 - 354.66666) 470.666666 = (941.3333 / 2) 470.666666 - 25% = (1/2 x 1/2) = 353 Which in the end, removed 72.8% of the entire film. 353/1296 Think about it folks. Do you know what the odds are, applying the above equation to the original film and having it sync with the remaining extant zfilm. The proof of concept is in the bottom video. When a fan-boy tells you what "is and isn't" possible without doing any research to prove otherwise, you might want to take it with a grain of salt. I encourage you to take my sliced down version and run it side by side with the Nix film. How do you know I used many more frames? Just look at the frame # and you'll see ghost numbers throughout the entire run. Those being frames that once were. If you don't have an idea of what needed to be accomplished, how would you know where to start. Added on edit: This is what it looked like before the frames were removed: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tIR2rrNCmu2Mb8nLJB-ZGkXGGii5ktrO/view?usp=sharing

David, The difference you are referring to between .3(z168-z171) and .18ft(z161-z166) per frame =.12ft per frame It might help to convert to a whole second: .12ft per frame x 18fps = 2.16ft per sec / 1.47(1mph) = 1.469ft per sec = 1 mph difference Apply the 1.111111 pass(removing 1 of the leftover 39.22 frames) to the average 11.2mph WC standard = 11.2 x 1.11111111 = 12.444...mph x 1.47 = 18.293ft per sec = 1to1 ratio @ 18.3fps Apply the 1.2 pass(removing 1/6 frames) to the average 11.2mph WC standard= 11.2 x 1.2 = 13.44mph Difference between 13.44 and 12.44mph =1mph The difference of 2.16ft separating 2 frame spans 161-166 (5frames) and 168-171(3 frames) in 1 second of time, is a 2 frame difference / 2.16ft = 1.08ft distance per frame = average limo speed per frame plotted at this location- approx z156-z166 = 10.8ft/10 frames.

I think a coincidence. That location z161-166 / z168-z171 does impact the area circa extant z313, but I believe in this way. Previously, I converted the extant zfilm in correlation with Bronson's film. But I didn't convert from a 48fps version stepped down to 18fps. Only converted from 18.3Z/12Bronson When you use 48fps, 18/12, the frame conversion between Bronson and Z ends up this way: 4Bronson x 1.5 (18/12) = 6z x 2.666666(48fps/18) = 16 zframes 4.02ft / 16 frames = .25125ft per frame .25125 x 18frames (1sec) = 4.52ft The distance the limo travels when plotted from extant z156-z166 = 10.8ft in 10 frames = 1.08ft per frame = 13.44mph z161-z166 = 5 frames x 1.08 ft per frame = 5.4ft 5.4ft - .9(distance traveled entry on CE884 for z161-166) = 4.5ft 5.4ft/18fps = .3ft per frame = z168-z171= .9ft per 3 frames

David, Bingo. Earlier in this topic(shown below), I supplied a breakdown for the Bronson flash frame and how that could be incorporated into the two headshot scenario. The only change now needed was the conversion using 18fps instead of 18.3fps, which will then match the previous post's distance difference of .22ft elevation = 4.02ft It would look like this now: The extant Zfilm(z301-z313) shows the limo travel (18/12 = 1.5 x 7.2ft = 10.8ft per sec /18frames) 10.98(from below graphic) - 10.8 = .18ft 4.2 - .18ft = 4.02ft The equation below should still reflect(or very close to) the excised frames around the two headshots. Imo

You can move that elevation relationship from Position A (428.7) to extant z313 (418.48) = 10.22ft The extra .22ft x 18.3 = 4.02ft = the Drommer label for a location near, but not indicative of extant z313. Equals the very close 2nd head shot.

48/18(whole frames) = 2.6666..... /2 = 1.3333..... /2 = cutting a 48fps film into half the frames (1st pass) 1.333.. converted to a fraction = 4/3. The reciprocal being 3/4 bringing that 4/3 back to a 1 to 1 ratio. 3/4 of the remaining frames from extant z133 were retained. 3/4 + 1/4 = 1 After the elimination of all frames from Z beginning (turn onto Elm) to extant z133, they began the next passes(multipliers) incorporating this from extant z133 forward. The combined total frames excised from extant z133 onward equals 1/4 of those remaining frames. This process does not include the variable of a limo stopping (more frames created) as there is no way to distinguish "math wise" whether it stopped or not. Imo Added on edit: I was wrong, they didn't remove 2/3 of all frames, they removed at least: 353/1296 = 1 - .272 = .728 = 72.8%

The first and second multipliers are used in the CE884 version which resides on the WC final plat of May 1964. They are applied in the (surprise-surprise) first 18 frame entries. 21.6ft/18frames = 1.2ft per frame. 1st Multiplier Expand to 18.3fps = 21.6/18 x 18.3 = 21.96ft per sec / 1.47 (1mph) = 14.938mph Working from the 11.2mph WC designated average: 11.204 x 1.2(1st Multiplier) = 13.444mph 13.444 x 1.1111111 (2nd Multiplier) = 14.938mph

If we want to get .9ft back to 1ft or a 1to1 ratio of frames to ft per frames, we must divide 1 by .9 = 1/.9 = 1.111111111 This is our second working multiplier.