Chris Davidson

A quick refresher into the reality of ballistics. Obviously didn't come from the 6th floor snipers nest.

Once you figure out what was done in post #266, your perfect sync idea becomes null and void. Once you realize the problem with a frontal shot and the extant zfilm, post z313, your genuine film becomes null and void. If you refuse to look at previous posts, that's your prerogative. Whenever you decide to increase my viewer count, I'll refer you back in time. That's if I even respond to your cr----p. Which is unlikely. Why don't you increase your viewer count by starting a new topic. That way, you can decrease my count. A win-win situation. Time for more Math.

You are lost. You have no idea what the math is about or what it's showing you. I can see you haven't quite figured out how ballistics and mathematics relate to each other. Refer back to post #309. Understand the question. Answer the question. I rest my case. Start your own "Zapruder film is genuine" thread.

Additional frames!!! You still have not figured out what was accomplished in post #266. Try converting a slow-motion movie to normal speed using only the progressive frames. Mid-shooting!!! Comprehension- Read what I write, not what you interpret me saying. I've given you examples of how it was done on film. You don't get it. Or you just don't want to see what's in front of you. Your own "zfilm is genuine" belief contradicts what is shown on the film after the extant z313 headshot.

Copied and pasted as a response to post #316.

Anybody with half a brain can press and hold the button down in the bottom position. I guess Zapruder was unable to distinguish between "run" and "slow motion", what is that, an eighth of an inch apart. Talk about a warped sense of what's possible. Here's a nice photo of the frame rate switch. Now everyone can determine for themselves, how difficult it was, to film continuously at 48fps (slow-motion) mode.

I see. First throw in your subjective Zapruder garbage, then, display your lack of reading comprehension by mis-interpreting what I said. Let me know when you've figured out your debris conundrum.

David, They're still trying to figure out post #266. Your answer is much more appropriate: "it was done at 48fps with a simple flick of a switch" All one had to do was press down on that switch (til it hit bottom) and hold. The easiest motion of all. They need to start their own topic, and stop increasing my view count.

I think Dino pretty much conveys what Breneman was expressing in his article by Marrs. According to Breneman, he was looking at frames for surveying purposes during the Time-Life investigation starting Nov25,1963. At least an agreement on missing frames.

To address the distance element of the previous posting there are entries for extant z207 and z235. z207-z235 distance via CE884 = 25.7ft 25.7ft / 1.54 sec = 16.68ft per sec = 11.35mph Was Mandel looking at (or being fed) a 48fps version or partial thereof, counting frames under the impression it was a 18fps version? Remember, there supposedly wasn't an official frame count for the extant film until Shaneyfelt in late Jan of 1964.

The conversion would look like this: 74/48 = 1.54 sec x 18.3fps = 28.2 frames + extant z207 = extant z235/236 = Connally shot according to Shaw's vague trajectory testimony.

David, 74 frames from extant z207(slant distance 175ft), not z190, = extant z281 Yes, z264 is B.S. Shaneyfelt measuring back 25ft from extant 313 headshot via the SS/FBI plat of elevations 418.35 - (419.72 labeled shot #2)= 1.37ft x 18.3 = 25.07ft Those elevations = station# 4+66.7(according to Tom P) - 25ft = station# 4+41.7 = extant z281 or extremely close to. This puts you directly in Brehm territory. chris

That would make perfect sense. But, "Why would there be a reference to Life Magazine results if the NPIC notes were created first? Or were they? I assumed NPIC notes were created on the immediate weekend after the assassination. The chicken or the egg. Added on edit: Not by Brugioni's team, at least as far as he knew. Looking at the one NPIC note labeled " Based on 18FPS as reported in Life Magazine" I believe it was created after the Dec 6 article appeared. Which leads back to what film was Mandel viewing while counting frames? Or who was feeding him this part of the info?

Connally? - Hypothetical in progress. I wish I knew from what source Mandel got his frame count. Obviously haven't been successful in that endeavor. As you view this graphic, think about Mandel's description of how many frames after the 170ft shot, does the next shot occur. Now, think of that in terms of a 48fps film and convert it to 18.3fps, while using extant z207 as the frame count for the first shot. What extant zframe would Mandel's second shot arrive at? Hint!!! Look at Shaw's testimony. The distance of 199ft is not significant, the angle is. The photo is from the 6th floor West window. Move up to the rooftop from there and what does Connally look like at z236ish. P.S. A bigger version of the graphic is attached because of the small text.

Why is this important? We know that sometime during or quite shortly after the Time-Life investigation ( circa week of Nov 25,1963) the slant distance of 175ft for extant z207 was determined by Robert West. If you refer back to CE560(date of Mar 27,1964), you'll see that the first shot distance was for a slant distance of 175ft. Look a little closer, and you see Frazier was trying to lead the target .56ft (Added on edit: vertical lead). (Ridiculous, I've previously shown why in terms of ballistic calculations and limo speed). .56ft x 18.3ft(vertical/horizontal conversion for Elm St slope) = 10.24ft Extant z207 = Station# 3+71.1 + 10.24ft = Station # 3+81.34 = Shot #1(slant distance of 184ft location (approx extant z218) on SS/FBI survey plat of Dec 5,1963/Feb 1964).

David, Even though the notation is at the base of the triangle in CE560, the distance is referring to the hypotenuse. If in agreement, I'll go on. Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, did you have a test run to determine the possibility of scoring hits with this weapon, Exhibit 139, on a given target at a given distance under rapid fire conditions? 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. Finally found what the minor discrepancy was with Breneman. Located from an old post of Tom P. We now know that Mandel got his measurements from Breneman for his article. We know Robert West corrected Breneman's errors for the 170ft distance and changed it to 174.54ft. The 175ft slant distance represents JFK's position in the limo(not including his head height above the ground) in extant z207.

If it helps. Remember, shot#1 below does not refer to extant z207 location (JFK in limo), it would be more like extant z218(JFK in limo) if a frame number was assigned to it using CE884 data. The hypotenuse (or slant distance as Simmons refers to it as) for shot#1below is 184ft, not the175ft Simmon's was shooting at.

David, Even though the notation is at the base of the triangle in CE560, the distance is referring to the hypotenuse. If in agreement, I'll go on. Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Simmons, did you have a test run to determine the possibility of scoring hits with this weapon, Exhibit 139, on a given target at a given distance under rapid fire conditions? 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.

Chuck, For now, I'll state that early on in the government investigations, they realized there was more than one shooter. Hence the manipulation of data to put one person in the 6th floor snipers nest. chris

Getting back to this, I believe Mandel receives his measurements from Breneman and they are published in the Dec 6,1963 Life edition. Robert West then corrects the work of Breneman, and the correct flat line distance to the first shot = JFK's physical location extant Z frame 207/208. The distance between the first shot and head shot according to Mandel is 170-260ft or a difference of 90ft. In CE560 (dated Mar27,1964), the distances change to 175-265ft, but the difference between stays the same at 90ft. In other words, fix the incorrect surveying, and the above is describing the same location.

I suggest you look at the two Z gifs again, and compare the total number of frames between them. Then, compare the total numbers to that same span from the extant Zfilm. In the gifs, once the frame counter starts, the limo moves forward in every frame.

Look for those missing frames Michael.

Tom P. via Robert West: Added on edit: Refer back to post #235 to find out who CB (Survey Party Chief) was.

When there is a slight difference in the height of the Stemmons sign relative to Z's LOS, it can have an enormous effect on what we see behind the sign. The last WC frame shows the signs true shape a little better, the earlier WC frame is where JFK would be at approx extant z207/208 and aligns the curb and the holes in the background wall. They surely knew how tall Z was by May of 1964.

Your lack of perception is the only flaw that's been introduced. You couldn't figure out what normal speed was (post 249+252) and what wasn't. What do you think normal speed looks like when converted back to the original? You should try understanding the concept before you rest your case.