Bernice Moore Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 here's a Garrison man behind the fence...at the drain..b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 here's a Garrison man behind the fence...at the drain..b Thanks, Bernice. I did not know that was Garrison photo. I thought Jack Brazil. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Question 7: If the NPIC created a document that stated: 1. jfk throat 2.74 frames later Connally 3.48 frames after that jfk head shot then listed 1. 73.8 2. 3.122.4 How would I decipher that? Answer: Connally hit at: 190+74=264-33frames=30ft@18.3 fps@11.3 mph=frame 231 or 157 + 74 =frame231 Frame 231+122(74+48)=frame 353 Frame 353, that sounds familiar. It should, it's what Tom Purvis calculated to be the 2nd head shot down in front of Altgen's. Tom Purvis: 29.7 feet covered in 2.1857923seconds/40 elapsed frames , = 0 .7425 ' per frame X 18.3 =13.58775 fps X 60 =815.265 fpm X 60 =48,915.9 fph/5280 =9.264375 mph. From Z313 to Z353 chris P.S. Hide in plain sight!! Where have I heard that before. Chris I can see You and Tom have put a lot into this and it is appreciated by many. Would this indicate the cut in the towner film to be non_accidental?. And the timing between the shots remains the same Just 30 feet further down Elm?.Would this also tell us why the wound ballistics are so confusing as to the angle of entrance ,with JBC and JFK leaning way over to the left and not in an upright position to recieve the wounds makes a bit more sense of the impact orientations. I wish I paid more attention to math all those years ago. Ian Ian, I didn't mean to shorten you on the rest of your question. If I wanted to hide a shot farther down the street, I might just take part of that frame and implement into the frame up the street. This way, if the 353 shot was from the TSBD, it would appear that 313 was a shot from that location. Very easy 1 frame fix. Would that clear up any of the ballistics mess, I don't know, but it would be a very quick and easy solution. chris Astounding, Chris! I think you've got it! And I think I now remember what Tom Wilson said...it may have been 30 or 40 FRAMES farther west, NOT FEET! Jack That's interesting, Jack. Depending on a couple of variables, such as the speed of the X-100 during that period of time and the number of frames shot per second by "that" camera--we could determine (or at least ball park) the limo's location. Chris? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 here's a Garrison man behind the fence...at the drain..b Thanks, Bernice. I did not know that was Garrison photo. I thought Jack Brazil. Jack it is from one of the books, i think it said 1967, will check tomorrow for you, the garrison man wore a suit, the Brazil men wore, like work clothes, here is jack brazil at the same drain...b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) Jack did not Altgens say the 30 feet figure also...thanks b.. Edited January 25, 2011 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) Jack it says dec.28..1967 the garrison photo, in my files...but will also check the book.also here is an earlier work of yours.on the gate.....b ..Sorry Chris, anything further on this will go into another thread...best all b Edited January 25, 2011 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 25, 2011 Author Share Posted January 25, 2011 Question 7: If the NPIC created a document that stated: 1. jfk throat 2.74 frames later Connally 3.48 frames after that jfk head shot then listed 1. 73.8 2. 3.122.4 How would I decipher that? Answer: Connally hit at: 190+74=264-33frames=30ft@18.3 fps@11.3 mph=frame 231 or 157 + 74 =frame231 Frame 231+122(74+48)=frame 353 Frame 353, that sounds familiar. It should, it's what Tom Purvis calculated to be the 2nd head shot down in front of Altgen's. Tom Purvis: 29.7 feet covered in 2.1857923seconds/40 elapsed frames , = 0 .7425 ' per frame X 18.3 =13.58775 fps X 60 =815.265 fpm X 60 =48,915.9 fph/5280 =9.264375 mph. From Z313 to Z353 chris P.S. Hide in plain sight!! Where have I heard that before. Chris I can see You and Tom have put a lot into this and it is appreciated by many. Would this indicate the cut in the towner film to be non_accidental?. And the timing between the shots remains the same Just 30 feet further down Elm?.Would this also tell us why the wound ballistics are so confusing as to the angle of entrance ,with JBC and JFK leaning way over to the left and not in an upright position to recieve the wounds makes a bit more sense of the impact orientations. I wish I paid more attention to math all those years ago. Ian Ian, I didn't mean to shorten you on the rest of your question. If I wanted to hide a shot farther down the street, I might just take part of that frame and implement into the frame up the street. This way, if the 353 shot was from the TSBD, it would appear that 313 was a shot from that location. Very easy 1 frame fix. Would that clear up any of the ballistics mess, I don't know, but it would be a very quick and easy solution. chris Astounding, Chris! I think you've got it! And I think I now remember what Tom Wilson said...it may have been 30 or 40 FRAMES farther west, NOT FEET! Jack That's interesting, Jack. Depending on a couple of variables, such as the speed of the X-100 during that period of time and the number of frames shot per second by "that" camera--we could determine (or at least ball park) the limo's location. Chris? Greg, Tom Wilson states in the video that he found the 313 head shot to exist 4ft farther down Elm St. None of my work is based on anything from Tom Wilson's findings. I'll go into distances and frame counts in a little bit. chris P.S. Thank you Duncan for the Tom Wilson video link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Thanks Chris. Sorry if I distracted from your point, that's not my intention. I'm looking forward to the remainder of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 25, 2011 Author Share Posted January 25, 2011 Not a problem Greg, I created this next document for comparison purposes. Posted awhile back, but here's the link again. On the left is the original WC 884 exhibit, I have added the red lines and numbers. On the right are my recalculations, I will explain this going forward. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 25, 2011 Author Share Posted January 25, 2011 Dealing only with the left side column. I wanted to see if there was a relationship between the frame total and elevation, so I chose the bottom 2 and top 2 entries, knowing that frame "A" was a variable. Frame 255-313=58 frames Elevation change =2.71 Elevation change between frame 161 and "A" = 2.72 161-58=103 Pretty close!!!. So from the original WC 884 document, Zframe 103 is probably pretty close to being "A". chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 25, 2011 Author Share Posted January 25, 2011 Next, I wanted to find out what they had configured for the overall speed within their chart. From frame 161-313=152frames 152/18.3fps=8.30sec. Distance 329-465=136ft 136ft/8.3=16.38ft per sec. 16.38ft per sec/1.47ft(1mph)=11.14mph Then, After doing my calculations on the right hand column, I would expect the results to be rather close. So, from frame 100-313=213frames 213/18.3fps=11.63sec Distance 275-465=190ft. 190ft/11.63sec=16.33ft per sec 16.33ft per sec/1.47=11.11mph chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 25, 2011 Author Share Posted January 25, 2011 ZFrame 100 in reality is elev. 428.94 I will show the calculations for that in a little bit. The importance of elev 428.94 is!!! Well, I'll use Tom Purvis's own words which are: To this point on the South curb of Elm St, Mr West's survey crew established their TBM(temporary benchmark) on Elm St. with the elevation 0f 428.94. In fact, if one will look at the Drommer plat, just to the right of where Mr.West actually established the elevation 428.94, one will find the Drommer elevation of "99.5". chris P.S. 428.94 is approx 24ft to the corner of the TSBD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 25, 2011 Author Share Posted January 25, 2011 If you keep in mind the ratio approx "1ft=1frame" which is actually 12.25 mph, this might help you along the way. For instance, in the WC figures from frame 186-207(21 frames)= approx 20.3 ft traveled. This equates to 12.11 mph. Why do I bring this up? Remember Frame "A" equating to frame 103 according to the leftside WC document while I determined it to be frame100 on the right, a difference of 3 frames. 24 frames is approx 24ft at 12.25 mph. 27 frames is approx 24ft at 11.11 mph My next question would be: But Chris says there is a 30ft difference in the shooting scenario, not 24. Once again, from frame 161-166, a difference of 5 frames, the limo is listed as only traveling 9/10 ft. This is obviously an adjustment. But for what? 5 frames @ 1frame per foot = 5 x 1.47 ft=7.35ft traveled -9/10ft=6.35 ft 5 frames @ 11.11mph=4.46ft.-9/10ft=3.46ft. Between these two calculations is a distance of(approx 6ft), when added to the distance between the TSBD and elev 428.94 which is approx 24ft a sum of approx 30ft is created. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 25, 2011 Author Share Posted January 25, 2011 Moving forward, my next question would be: Chris said the limo covered 30ft in 33 frames which equates to 11.3 mph. It does, working from the rightside document, take away the slow down period from frame 255-313. Warning, 58 frames worth!!!! When you do this, my calculations say frame 100-255=155frames 155/18.3fps=8.46 sec. 141ft traveled /8.46 sec=16.66ft sec 16.66ft sec/1.47ft(1mph)=11.33 mph=33frames or 30ft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 25, 2011 Author Share Posted January 25, 2011 How did I come up with the elevation calculations on the rightside? First off, the WC elevations on the leftside are based on a few variables. 1.Street elevation + 2. Head height of JFK standin during survey work- minus 3. Vertical angle computation for elevation 10 inches lower than the JFK standin(which was compensation for height difference between JFK actual height and the standin height). Or, in other words, the B.S. figure used to make/hide the real scenario. Once again, Tom has provided me with some valuable documents from Robert West. The original street elevation at frame 313 was 418.35 determined by the SS survey work of 12/5/63. The WC work determined it to be 418.48. Very close, a little more than an inch difference according to Tom. The elevation of frame 208 was changed by the WC and applied to frame 210 giving it a street elevation of 423.53. Knowing these 2 elevations allowed me to calculate the difference and come up with a multiplier for each frame. 423.53-418.35=5.05 5.05/103frames =.049 Then from frame 210-110=frame 100 110 x .049=5.39 elev 5.39 added to elevation 423.53(frame 210)=428.92=frame 100. You might have noticed that 428.94 is my marker for frame 100, the difference is minute. I also incorporated the .02 elevation change in frame 210 and 313, hence the difference between the original determinations of those elevations. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now