Chris Davidson

19 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

The blue shape for those who need help.

 

Briefly,

Rotate the blue triangle clockwise so the WC labeled PositionA connects to the "+" mark representing Station# 275.0

A right triangle is then formed by extending the base to the intersection of (Zapruders LOS and Robert West's path) then back to the WC labeled PositionA = the hypotenuse.

Something along this line: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_mean_theorem

Onto frame counting. within this blue triangle span.

1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

The "official" WC documentation put the distance between StationC and extant z161@ 94.7ft.

If you care to use my "unofficial" path described above, my distance = 45.8ft + 48.9ft = 94.7ft.

The same distance. What a surprise.

Can you guess what geometric shape is formed when combining the official and unofficial paths?

 

 

The blue shape for those who need help.

13 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

PositionA residing on JFK's path = Station#280.3   (leftside blue box)

StationC resides at                            Station# 234.5.    (rightside blue box)

Difference =                                                          45.8ft

45.8ft/18.3ft = 2.5ft elevation change when total distance retains the 3.13degree slope.

Difference between PositionA elevation 428.7 and 418.48 (z313) 10ft - 7.5ft  (z161 to z313 elevation change) = 2.5ft elevation change 

7.5ft/10ft = .75

10ft/7.5ft = 1.333... 

                                                                              

The "official" WC documentation put the distance between StationC and extant z161@ 94.7ft.

If you care to use my "unofficial" path described above, my distance = 45.8ft + 48.9ft = 94.7ft.

The same distance. What a surprise.

Can you guess what geometric shape is formed when combining the official and unofficial paths?

13 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

The station# that is PositionA along JFK's path = 280.3 (inside blue box

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PositionA residing on JFK's path = Station#280.3   (leftside blue box)

StationC resides at                            Station# 234.5.    (rightside blue box)

Difference =                                                          45.8ft

45.8ft/18.3ft = 2.5ft elevation change when total distance retains the 3.13degree slope.

Difference between PositionA elevation 428.7 and 418.48 (z313) 10ft - 7.5ft  (z161 to z313 elevation change) = 2.5ft elevation change 

7.5ft/10ft = .75

10ft/7.5ft = 1.333... 

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

And 161 was really 168 as determined by WEST

No,

West didn't determine any frame #'s. 

Robert West testifying via the Clay Shaw trial below:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OdXpHbUhhc1dPZzg/view?usp=sharing

Why wouldn't they have found where 133 was since that is the first frame WE SEE with the limo...

They did find extant133, some of it has been connected to the overall equation I furnished earlier involving the 30.86ft difference. 

If the limo did actually make that wide turn...  what does that do to the analysis?

Wait until the analysis is through, unless someone provides proof that it actually occurred.

 

DJ

 

This - to me - sounds as if POSITION A was deemed to be along the route of the limo...

It was, at least for syncing the math.

Whether it was the legitimate route, I've already expressed that for now, I don't have any way of showing it took the wide turn.

But, with the oncoming introduction of some frame counting from Position A, I'll let you draw your own conclusion.

And this shows how there never was a change incorporating the 10" change AT STREET LEVEL... only at rifle muzzle level and only when needed... which does not move the limo forward 15.25'.  

I believe there is a difference of 15.25ft, just not where we expected it to appear.

Still to come.

 

 

 

Chris

1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

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.

 

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

34 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

As a rebuttal  to this, these figures make no sense. Why?

 

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.

2 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Looks like they've changed that curbline over the years.  

 

 

 

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.

5 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Sized and superimposing one of my video frames over the extant zfilm.

Added on Edit: 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.

 

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.

22 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

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.

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. 

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

Eddy,

Let me see if I can help you understand and boil down Chris and Dave's math theory to the bare essentials.

Boil an egg instead.

More constructive.

The bottom line is two FBI guys made a diorama of Dealey Plaza the weekend of the murder.  The first version of their diorama showed little toy cars on Elm Street in the position of the shots. They obviously made a mistake because for the Z313 shot - the head shot - they had the car way down almost right next to the knoll steps where the old guys were standing.  We all know that that's not what really happened.

Explain where the rear blowout brain debris is on your extant film?

Now try to keep an open mind here.  But how do we know that the head shot did not happen way down there?  It's simple - you just have to watch the existing Zapruder film.  And even better, you can also watch the Nix film.  As a matter of fact, there exists a video on YTV where someone took both of the films and matched them up frame per frame.  The end result proves two things: 1) both films match up perfectly; 2) both films prove that the FBI guys who made their diorama got it wrong.

Already countered with a different version.

That, in a nutshell, is basically it. The FBI guys made a mistake.  And during that weekend, the diorama was corrected and the head shot was brought up to where it's supposed to be, more or less the same position as what we see in the Z film and also the Nix film.

Nuts are for squirrels.

The old reliable FBI. All they made were simple mistakes. Can someone be that naive?

Too bad you only believe in a single headshot.

Simple, right?  Not according to Chris and Dave.  The Math Team here thinks that something far more sinister happened.  They think that an entirely different Z film exists showing shots that actually happened way down by the steps and the old guys. They also believe that the Z film that we can see on YTV was actually filmed in 48 FPS, and then, sneakily and sinisterly, the Bad Secret Agents took out 67% of those frames.  It *used to be* 67% but now Chris is saying it's 72% of the frames.  But anyway, these removed frames removed enough of the footage to move the shots to where we basically see them on any YTV Zapruder copy.

Asked and answered.

It's called compression.

When you excise frame groups in one fell swoop (z start to extant z133) that has a tendency to increase the % removed.

So where does the Math come in? The FBI also did a survey of Dealey so Chris and Dave here are using Math and Geometry to further "prove" that this non-existent secret never-before-seen-by-the-public Z film exists. That's what it all boils down to.

Perhaps someone can explain the geometric importance of a "triangle" to you.

Now keep in mind here that Dave Josephs, who is completely and totally anti-WC, meaning he supposedly does not believe *anything* in that written record, will actually pick and choose from that lying xxxx of a document to further "solve" this theory. In other words, he doesn't believe the WC except when it helps him "prove" one of this theories.

Spoken like a true nutter.

And now, their more recent exciting and revealing solution to this theory is the Tina Towner film has been discovered to be fake as well(!)

Reading comprehension necessary. 

Fake? No.    Altered?  Yes Yes Yes

But anyway, this is basically what they're doing - they're adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing, and formulizing the numbers - and numbers from those numbers - from the surveys to prove all of this. They're both playing the John Nash secret agent role here.  Remember that?

Were only doing what your prized WC did, except reversing their honest mistakes.

In the market to purchase some swampland I see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB9Gzz3yhYY

The rebuttal to this has already been posted.

A parrot eventually learns more than one response over time.

No matter what you tell them - that there's only one Z film and that film *proves conspiracy* because the shooting sequence completely negates the ridiculous SBT - neither of them will listen.  In their minds, they're 100% correct and deep into this theory of numbers and missing frames and fake films and the lying liars FBI agents.

It's quite evident the films have been altered.

No better way to prove it than with basic math. 

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.

On 3/6/2018 at 2:29 PM, Chris Davidson said:

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

 

 

 

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

On 3/7/2018 at 8:31 AM, Michael Walton said:

I enjoyed reading them both and they're very informative.  I especially like reading the 60's era researchers because they don't revert to ridiculous and outrageously phony conspiracies - no BS - that you can find on this forum.  Hardly Lee and the fake Z film come to mind and Markus confirmed with his story that the Z film is not fake.

I mean, think about it.  If world-class conspiracy agents would faked the Z film, why in the world did they leave in the part Markus talks about which clearly shows the shooting sequence to be nearly impossible with the piece of junk Oswald was supposed to have used? They'd have to be the most bumbling agents in history.  But as Markus says in his paper, and as I've said here over and over, the film SHOWS conspiracy and it's why it was kept away from the public for so long.  But of course the paranoid faction on this forum will call me names and say I'm wrong and look at all of this Math to prove it's fake and blah blah blah LOL

 I think Paul Trejo and Tom Graves are going to love when they read this LOL

 

 

 

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