Chris Davidson

Claude, Shadow contrast won't help Lovelady within the same Wiegman frame. There is no information there.

Chris, You are welcome. I'll reverse that old adage by saying "once you've eliminated the possible, the only thing left is the impossible" or something to that effect.

​David, I filmed that back in 2005. Handheld B/H 414 You're pretty accurate as I tried to keep my feet planted and rotate my upper torso while filming, if I remember correctly. My brother took a few photos of me filming.

The distance per frame traveled from Position A to z168 (via CE884 data on final WC plat of May1964) treating this as a 48fps equation= 50.7/168 = .301ft per frame. Extend this to the first two entries and the distance traveled between z168-z171= .9ft total or .3ft per frame = a match with the (ft. per frame total) sentence above. Added on edit: 169 frames would be exactly .3ft per frame

The supplied excerpt is from the Myers' multi sync film project. Position A would land at about Towner frame 136. Added on edit:138 Z168 is between z150 and z175. Myers' average for these two spans is 9.2 and 10.5mph. 9.2 + 10.5mph =19.7/2 = 9.85mph This would equal a match for the previous post. There you go, I just averaged two averages.

Distance from Position A to z168 = 50.7ft 168frames@48fps = 3.5sec Average speed of limo = 50.7ft/3.5sec = 14.485ft per sec 14.485ft per sec / 1.47(1mph) = 9.85mph average

Let me hypothesize that Position A is the beginning of a frame count sequence. In this case, one that consists of a film shooting at 48fps. The span from Position A to z168 = 168 frames. 168/48fps = 3.5 seconds.

Distance from (Position A to z168) = 329.2 -278.5 = 50.7ft

See next post.

Hi Chris, Stabilized somewhat. This is one result I achieved.

The elevation for Position A is a simple subtraction of 3.27ft = 431.97 - 3.27 = 428.7 elevation = Position A

Chris, it would be nice if you'd explain what you have done to this photo. I see you have pasted an extra Lovelady between PM and the Lovelady belonging to this photo. The one you pasted is from the other frame in that animated gif. That frame/photo is in much better focus, which you can tell by comparing the two Loveladys here in this composite. My question for you, Chris, is what did you do to de-blur PM so that we can even make out one of his eyes. And I see the white spot is bigger now, but more importantly is quite square with definite edges. How is that possible, given that the original is so out of focus and void of such detail? I know that de-blurring of an out-of-focus picture is possible. But it has its limits and I'm fairly certain that de-blurring of this photo would not bring out an eye. And you think this is a woman??? What makes you say that? You're joking, right? Sandy, It appears you recognize the left eye of this person, as did my wife (who could care less about the assassination) and myself, almost immediately. Otherwise. I don't believe you would have asked this question: My question for you, Chris, is what did you do to de-blur PM so that we can even make out one of his eyes. I did not de-blur anything. The process was simple: Photoshop: Image: Adjustment: Shadow/Highlights: Amount 75 Tonal Width 75 and then: Photoshop: Curves: RGB Channel: Output 35 Input 85 In other words, lighten the shadow area, then create contrast within. Done deal

Good question. Either nobody knows or nobody is talking. P.S. Your white mug idea is not bad. Assume that Lovelady had the white object in hand and he raised it up. Where/how high does the white object get raised to in relation to Lovelady's face? i.e. eyes, forehead, nose Chris, you're a genius! You've done it again. I'll take your challenge, when I find a little time. I think it will be enlightening. Sandy, I was wrong. It appears the person in Weigman is a woman, holding a coffee mug, out in front of her mouth. Lovelady's head cloned as a height comparison to the white object.

Good question. Either nobody knows or nobody is talking. P.S. Your white mug idea is not bad. Assume that Lovelady had the white object in hand and he raised it up. Where/how high does the white object get raised to in relation to Lovelady's face? i.e. eyes, forehead, nose Chris, you're a genius! You've done it again. I'll take your challenge, when I find a little time. I think it will be enlightening. Sandy, I was wrong. It appears the person in Weigman is a woman, holding a coffee mug, out in front of her mouth.

SS/FBI shot#1 131.3ft - 110ft = 21.3ft

Good question. Either nobody knows or nobody is talking. P.S. Your white mug idea is not bad. Assume that Lovelady had the white object in hand and he raised it up. Where/how high does the white object get raised to in relation to Lovelady's face? i.e. eyes, forehead, nose

I like it. The elbows are an even better match with the camera. imo

Yeah, I found some on eBay. Here's one with a pistol grip and light: The problem with this is that the light is too far above the hand. So is the lens. It doesn't fit what we see in the videos. btw, This is the photo I used in the preceeding gif. He is holding the movie camera with a pistol grip.

I've always felt the elbow positioning dictated someone holding a camera. Robin made me question that original thought with the introduction of a coffee cup. This gif is not quite the exact body orientation, but it's fairly close. A camera it is. imo

I believe this will be the last of Tom's documents I'll be introducing: Referring back to post#72 also, it's obvious that Shaneyfelt is keeping this total distance of 61ft in sync moving down Elm St. 39.66ft + 21.34ft = 61ft

How did I arrive at 1.17ft above the windowsill ledge for surveyed zframe 207? There are a couple of ways to go about this: The easy way is look at survey frame z207, the 92.07 entry (right side of triangle) equals an elevation of 492.07ft The windowsill elevation is 490.9ft, look at the top right of the graphic within this post. Subtract these two and the difference is the rifle height above the windowsill. Or, Since I know the WC used 3.27ft as JFK's head elevation in every single frame surveyed (CE884), I can subtract that from the base elevation of the triangle ( 427.02) and add 3.27ft to the height (65.05) = 427.02 - 3.27 = street elev of 423.75 Subtract this street elev of 423.75 from the windowsill elevation of 490.9ft, since this is to the street. 490.9 - 423.75 = 67.15 and add 3.27ft to the height (65.05) = 68.32 elev And finally, subtract 68.32 - 67.15 = 1.17ft You have to remember there are measurements to the street and measurements to a spot 3.27ft above the street. chris And, with the limo at 21.34ft, this horizontal distance, converted back to a vertical distance elevation in terms of the Elm St. slope (1ft vertical per 18.3ft horizontal) = 21.34/18.3 = 1.166ft In essence, a match for the determination of the (rifle barrel end) elevation, 1.17ft above the windowsill ledge for surveyed zframe 207

The .56ft elevation difference 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

Excerpt from post #118: The slight adjustment between 3.33ft vs 3.27ft is the difference between these elevations = .06ft vertical = .06 x 18.3(1ft vert. per 18.3ft horizontal) = 1.098ft .62ft - .06ft (southerly adjustment see Tom's notes post #118) = .56ft elevation.

110ft/18.3 = 6.01ft. elev change. 490.9 - 423.07 = 67.83ft -60.7(window frame sill)- .5(curb height)= 6.63ft elev change. 6.63-6.01 = .62ft elev difference