Chris Davidson Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Kingsbury Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to ascertain the speed of the Presidential limousine at the time of the assassination? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; because we were able to determine the speed of the camera, and thereby accurately determine the length of time it takes for a specific number of frames to run through the camera at this 18.3 frames per second, and having located these frame positions in the street, we took the farthest distance point we had in the Zapruder film which was frame 161 through frame 313. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted June 11, 2013 Author Share Posted June 11, 2013 Frames 161-313=152 frames 152 frames x .9ft per frame = 136.8ft CE884 Frames 161-313= 136.1ft chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted June 11, 2013 Author Share Posted June 11, 2013 At first glance, one might look at the difference between total distance traveled from frame 161-166 which is .9ft. Then, from the previous post, assume that the WC made a mistake and meant to input each frame traveled from 161-166 (5 frames) was .9ft. which would then give frame 166 a Station# location of 3+33.7 or 3+29.2 + 4.5ft(5 x.9ft)= 3+33.7 And, as further proof, expand those 5 frames over an 18.3 frames per sec span. 18.3 x .9ft = 16.47 ft per sec = 11.20 mph. See previous Shaneyfelt testimony. See Zfilm at 161-166 chris P.S. But!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted June 11, 2013 Author Share Posted June 11, 2013 That's a big but t. Frame161 was never surveyed in. In fact, frame161 survey info belongs to frame168, as was long ago revealed by Tom P. That might get the wheel rolling a bit. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 That's a big but t. Frame161 was never surveyed in. In fact, frame161 survey info belongs to frame168, as was long ago revealed by Tom P. That might get the wheel rolling a bit. chris Really? Why don't you match up all the measurements from the West notes to the WC exhibit and get back to us. I'll understand why you won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted June 11, 2013 Author Share Posted June 11, 2013 Craig, I can see that you don't approve of the .9ft conversion to 11.20 mph. That is an exact recreation. Straight from the WC. But, as you have mis-stated in the past, (imo) the recreations were much more exact than you will ever know or admit to. chris P.S. Moving on!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 (edited) Craig, I can see that you don't approve of the .9ft conversion to 11.20 mph. That is an exact recreation. Straight from the WC. But, as you have mis-stated in the past, (imo) the recreations were much more exact than you will ever know or admit to. chris P.S. Moving on!!! Translated from Davidsonspeak. The numbers I quoted don't match. Let me try and wiggle out of that problem by creating a strawman. Your attempted dodge is duly noted. Lets try again. You say the notes from West for 168 match the 161 entries on the WC document. Can you match up all the numbers? Its a simple questions, same as it was the first time I asked. If you can't just say so and we can discard your theory. BTW, do you understand the term AVERAGE? Edited June 11, 2013 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 Moving on!!! Thanks for proving ONCE AGAIN the inaccuracy of the GUESSES made while making this recreation. Welcome to reality Chris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted June 12, 2013 Author Share Posted June 12, 2013 There is only one Station# 3+29.2, that belongs to Frame168. Yes, Moving on. The Vehicle Speed Analysis document supplied previously should provide you with a better comparison of what occurs when you make a 7 frame adjustment 161-168. Since the WC likes working with averages, (easier to hide starts and stops) why not figure out the difference between the 2 averages for frames (168-185) and frames (161-185) using the Vehicle Speed Analysis chart. 168-185 = 20.84mph/2 = 10.42 mph 161-185 = 14.84mph/2 = 7.42 mph An average difference of 3mph. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted June 12, 2013 Author Share Posted June 12, 2013 An average difference of 3 mph= 3 x 1.47ft (1mph) = 4.41ft per sec. 4.41ft sec x 6.8 sec = 29.988ft or 30ft/4.41ft sec= 6.8sec Where is that Mandel article? chris P.S. In case it didn't occur to you, that 30ft entry is somewhat important in the overall scheme of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted June 12, 2013 Author Share Posted June 12, 2013 (edited) Briefly, I want to go back and get the speed of the limo from Z168-185. Using the Vehicle Speed Analysis chart, that would be 17frames @ 20.1ft traveled. This = 21.63 ft per sec = 14.71 mph. 14.71 mph minus the Average MPH (3.74 +2.24) added together for entries (Z168-171)+ (Z161-166)= 14.71-5.98 = 8.73mph. 8.73 mph = limo speed from frames Z133-168 = 35frames @ 24.5ft (on film). Change to "on paper" Edited June 13, 2013 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted June 12, 2013 Author Share Posted June 12, 2013 The reason I jumped to the limo speed was to come back and tie it back in to the 3mph/30ft scenario. Since Z168 is actually Station# 3+29.2 (on paper at least), the frame span between this and Z255 becomes 87 frames @87.2ft traveled. The ratio of 8.73 mph to 87.2 ft is a ratio of 1mph for 10ft. Or, 3mph for 30ft. See post 10 + 11 for the connection. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted June 12, 2013 Author Share Posted June 12, 2013 In order to connect the 8.73 mph to Zframes 168-255 (87.2ft) in terms that Mandel can deal with, convert 8.73mph to ft per sec. 8.73 x 1.47 = 12.83ft per sec x 6.8 sec = 87.24ft. WC CE884 distance from Z168-255 = 87.2ft. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted June 12, 2013 Author Share Posted June 12, 2013 It always helps to convert back to time spans every once in awhile. For instance, 87frames/18.3fps = 4.75 sec. 4.75 sec x 21.623ft sec (14.71mph) = 102.7ft 102.7ft - 87.2 = 15.5ft That's how you make up 15.5ft, the difference between StationC 2+34.5 and the snipers nest, Station# 2+50 by the time you reach extant Z255. 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