Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 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 "Very close, a little more than an inch difference according to Tom." If I typed an "inch", then I was incorrect! As recalled, it was slightly more than a foot (1-foot)difference. The trouble one gets into when dealing only with elevations is the contour slope of Elm St. and the difference in elevation based on the center of the street v. progressively going towards the sides of the street. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 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. Plus or minus a frame or two! http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z350.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 28, 2011 Author Share Posted January 28, 2011 Thanks Tom. Moving on, here's another piece. Distance from Station C (2+34.5) to WC frame100(2+75)(elev 428.94) =40.5 ft. Frame count from Towner92(JFK at corner of TSBD) to Z132/133=40/41. Yes, this would be indicative of both camera's running at the same speed. Add another explanation for the Towner splice. 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 Evolves from Station C through the Altgen's head shot, at least. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Thanks Tom. Moving on, here's another piece. Distance from Station C (2+34.5) to WC frame100(2+75)(elev 428.94) =40.5 ft. Frame count from Towner92(JFK at corner of TSBD) to Z132/133=40/41. Yes, this would be indicative of both camera's running at the same speed. Add another explanation for the Towner splice. 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 Evolves from Station C through the Altgen's head shot, at least. chris Chris, You appear to be getting into what was done in order to come up with an "average" mph over the entire distance. This is where Shaneyfelt gets caught, if one will reference the "VEHICLE SPEED ANALYSIS" as long ago presented in the "ALTERED EVIDENCE" issue. This too is why Shaneyfelt determined that he needed to "fudge" a few of the frame numbers on the West tabulation (CE884), as they too closely demonstrated the errors of their ways. If one takes from "Point A" to "Point B" in their survey work, then one can come up with a "good average". Or at least they thought so. It is when one takes each point between "A" & "B" and evaluates the vehicle speed based on their survey work, that one realizes the holes in their assassination re-enactment and either the Presidential Limo slowed down to just a few MPH right after rounding the curve, or else there are some frames missing somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted January 28, 2011 Author Share Posted January 28, 2011 It is when one takes each point between "A" & "B" and evaluates the vehicle speed based on their survey work, that one realizes the holes in their assassination re-enactment and either the Presidential Limo slowed down to just a few MPH right after rounding the curve, or else there are some frames missing somewhere. Tom, Yes, just some reverse engineering. I believe it's rather obvious to anyone interested, how the WC manipulated the frame #'s and distance traveled to fit there film version. I don't know how close I can get with the material you have given me, when superimposing it over Drommer. I will say that frame 231-313=approx 55ft when I do that, compared to the WC distance of 72ft. A difference of 17ft. Which sounds like a distance mentioned in one of your other posts, not necessarily pertaining to this particular frame span. Onward with some film sync issues, which tie's into all of this. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Chris...you are doing important calculations here, which are not going unnoticed. Jack Thanks Jack, I believe once I'm through with this topic, many eyes will open up. chris Will you or have you condensed these four threads (your part, anyway) into a cohesive whole anywhere, e.g., downloadable paper, etc.? If the calcs are even a little hard to follow, they're made harder by all of the breaks and others' posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 I agree. It is very hard to follow with multiple postings spread over several days. It all needs to be put TOGETHER in a single article, with conclusions at each step, for those of us unable to appreciate the significance of each step. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 It is when one takes each point between "A" & "B" and evaluates the vehicle speed based on their survey work, that one realizes the holes in their assassination re-enactment and either the Presidential Limo slowed down to just a few MPH right after rounding the curve, or else there are some frames missing somewhere. Tom, Yes, just some reverse engineering. I believe it's rather obvious to anyone interested, how the WC manipulated the frame #'s and distance traveled to fit there film version. I don't know how close I can get with the material you have given me, when superimposing it over Drommer. I will say that frame 231-313=approx 55ft when I do that, compared to the WC distance of 72ft. A difference of 17ft. Which sounds like a distance mentioned in one of your other posts, not necessarily pertaining to this particular frame span. Onward with some film sync issues, which tie's into all of this. chris In event that you come up with specific locations which can be utilized (distance/time/elapsed frames), then let me know and I will attempt to extract whatever relevant information can be found from the West survey notes as well as the varioius survey plats which I received from Mr. West. Transposing some of this information over to the Drommer plat sometimes gives a much better picture of things overall. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 11, 2011 Author Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) Tom, Learning to flip a triangle so I have a level base, makes a big difference. As for specific locations, I've been working on this one: Frame161-166 is a 5ft adjustment. A 5ft adjustment added to figures in (WC CE884) gives me approx (WC frame 208). Adding the "line of sight rifle to JFK" would now = approx 180ft. 180ft/22.19ft per sec(15.1 mph)=8.11 sec. 8.11sec x 24.3 FramesPerSec=197frames 197frames-40frames(difference between 313+353)=frame 157 =splice. WC frame 208-197=11frames 11 frames+40 frames=51 frames 51 frames = difference between a camera running at 18.3FPS/24.3 FPS through 157 total frames. 157frames/18.3=8.57sec 8.57sec x 24.3FPS =208.4frames 208-157=51frames chris P.S. Thanks for the geometry tips!!! Edited February 11, 2011 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 11, 2011 Author Share Posted February 11, 2011 BTW, If you want to tie those 40 frames back to the beginning of the film, you might look at it this way: Station C = 2+34.5 Position A = 2+75.0 Difference of 40.5 ft. WC basically uses a 1ft per 1frame ratio in CE884 among individual segments, excluding frame segment 255-313. For example: frame 166 -186=20ft=20frames. So, If frame 100(see my corrected CE884) is my 2+75 elevation and I subtract 40frames, I'm at frame 60. Plug that back into CE884 and from frame 60-313 is 253 frames and 231ft traveled. 253/18.3FPS=13.82 sec 231ft/13.82sec=16.71ft per sec. 16.71ft per sec/1.47sec(1mph)=11.36mph. Now plug the 24.3FPS/15.1 mph scenario in: 253/24.3=10.41 sec. 231ft/10.41sec=22.19ft per sec 22.19ft per sec/1.47sec(1mph)=15.1 mph. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 15, 2011 Author Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) Chris...you are doing important calculations here, which are not going unnoticed. Jack Thanks Jack, I believe once I'm through with this topic, many eyes will open up. chris Will you or have you condensed these four threads (your part, anyway) into a cohesive whole anywhere, e.g., downloadable paper, etc.? If the calcs are even a little hard to follow, they're made harder by all of the breaks and others' posts. Duke, No, I haven't. If you're confused with any of the equations, feel free to ask their significance. I would hope by now, that a few realize the equations and results given are not coincidental. Let me introduce another equation and I'll try to explain it in simplified terms. Amount of time it takes to film the number of frames that we see in the extant Zfilm at 24.3 FramesPerSecond 483 frames/24.3 Frames Per Second = 19.87 seconds. Amount of time it takes to film the number of frames that we see in the extant Zfilm at 18.3 FramesPerSecond 483 frames /18.3 Frames Per Second = 26.39 seconds Total frames created if I use the same amount of time used for 24.3 FramesPerSecond@483 frames, and multiply it by 18.3 FramesPerSecond. 19.87 seconds x 18.3 Frames Per Second = 363 frames Difference in total frame counts between the above 2 scenarios. 483-363=120 frames Testimony from the Garrison trial: Q: How many such slides do you have in your possession, Mr. Orth? A: From frame 200 to frame 320, so that would be 120 slides. Difference in time between above 2 scenarios. 26.39sec - 19.87 sec = 6.52 Difference in time between 24.3 and 18.3 FramesPerSecond over 483 frames, multiplied by the difference in Frames Per Second difference between 24.3/18.3=6 over those 483 total frames. 6.52 x 6 = 39.12 frames Difference between shot at 313 and 353 or 30ft=40 frames. 1975: May 12: National Archives acknowledges receipt of 323 Zapruder frame "color transparencies" (slides) and the "first and second generation copies" of the film from Time Incorporated, available for viewing only on the premises of the National Archives. (Archives Change of Holdings Report) The slides in the original set were made by Time-LIFE. The set included frames 164 through 483, except for the missing frame 349. 323 + missing 40(difference between frame 313 and 353) =363total=19.87 seconds x 18.3 FramesPerSecond=363frames (see above). 2 sets of slides. A mix and match. Receipt of 323 slides and the original set from 164-483 -frame349 = 318 frames. 318 does not equal 323. chris Edited February 15, 2011 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Chris...thanks, but you take us for a lot smarter than we are. You have got it all figured out so YOU UNDERSTAND IT but that does not mean all of us do. I am a bottom line person. WHAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE? After all your figuring, what is the conclusion? What does it mean? Like... ...was the limo stop edited out? ...was the limo farther west at the head shot? ...was the film shot at 24fps and reduced to 18.3fps? ...were altered films made to conform with each other by changing frame count? ...what is the significance of the numbers you have come up with? Math has always been my poorest subject. Too abstract. I like things which make conclusions clear, and I can understand. When you just give me calculations, my brain does not relate them to a complete picture. Please tell us the conclusions from the calculations...the bottom line. Thanks. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 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 From Mary Ferrell website: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 15, 2011 Author Share Posted February 15, 2011 Robin, See post 55 for the importance of frame 208. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Chris I am like Jack Maths was never my best subject at school. I could stare at this all night, and i still wouldn't get it. Tom, Learning to flip a triangle so I have a level base, makes a big difference. As for specific locations, I've been working on this one: Frame161-166 is a 5ft adjustment. A 5ft adjustment added to figures in (WC CE884) gives me approx (WC frame 208). Adding the "line of sight rifle to JFK" would now = approx 180ft. 180ft/22.19ft per sec(15.1 mph)=8.11 sec. 8.11sec x 24.3 FramesPerSec=197frames 197frames-40frames(difference between 313+353)=frame 157 =splice. WC frame 208-197=11frames 11 frames+40 frames=51 frames 51 frames = difference between a camera running at 18.3FPS/24.3 FPS through 157 total frames. 157frames/18.3=8.57sec 8.57sec x 24.3FPS =208.4frames 208-157=51frames chris P.S. Thanks for the geometry tips!!! 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