Craig Lamson Posted June 12, 2013 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 Again translated for Chris Davidson EVASION speak...Only ONE number matches so I was being misleading... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 (edited) 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. You are relying on a reporters take now? Boy oh boy desperation sets in for Chris. Edited June 12, 2013 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 (edited) 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 Sadly, as has been established many times before the Chris's take on the "snipers nest" at 2+50 is false. This is really quite amusing, since it was also shown conclusive that Chris did not even know what he was measuring on his plats, and that his plates were incorrect for the size and location of the TSBD, that here he is trying to sell the proven false data once again. There is no 15.5 foot difference. Its all more smoke and mirrors from Chris. But hey, give it your best shot. Lay out the complete plat, and show us. And this time actually use the numbers correctly....I don't think that's possible for you. Edited June 12, 2013 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted June 12, 2013 Author Share Posted June 12, 2013 Craig, You are having a tough time understanding what occurs when you add and subtract frames from one span to another. Go back to the beginning and calculate 24 frames (161-185) @ 20.1ft and 17frames @ 20.1ft and let us know what the difference is in terms of MPH. It's only a 7 frame difference, how different could it be? Say 4.28 mph. chris P.S. Then you should take into account what it does to the span before Z168 and after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 (edited) Craig, You are having a tough time understanding what occurs when you add and subtract frames from one span to another. Go back to the beginning and calculate 24 frames (161-185) @ 20.1ft and 17frames @ 20.1ft and let us know what the difference is in terms of MPH. It's only a 7 frame difference, how different could it be? Say 4.28 mph. chris P.S. Then you should take into account what it does to the span before Z168 and after. I understand completely. Its a recreation, which is a guess and of course there are errors. That's what happens when you guess. So lay out your complete plat Chris to show you how you screwed up your measurements and your conclusions, by using the wrong numbers and measuring to the wrong places. Or have you corrected your mistakes? Edited June 12, 2013 by Craig Lamson 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. You are relying on a reporters take now? Boy oh boy desperation sets in for Chris. 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. You are relying on a reporters take now? Boy oh boy desperation sets in for Chris. Well, no. I use the reporter to help me find the story within the story. Or, in this case, the film within the film. For example: When dealing with math, you should include ratio's. Especially when using different scenarios to fit one event. So, the change from Z168-255 to 161-255 changed the ratio away from .6 87frames/145frames = .6 Mandel says 74 frames and 48 frames later or a total of 122 frames. His second shot location becomes a matching ratio from 1st-3rd shot span. 74/122 = .6 chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 (edited) 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. You are relying on a reporters take now? Boy oh boy desperation sets in for Chris. 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. You are relying on a reporters take now? Boy oh boy desperation sets in for Chris. Well, no. I use the reporter to help me find the story within the story. Or, in this case, the film within the film. For example: When dealing with math, you should include ratio's. Especially when using different scenarios to fit one event. So, the change from Z168-255 to 161-255 changed the ratio away from .6 87frames/145frames = .6 Mandel says 74 frames and 48 frames later or a total of 122 frames. His second shot location becomes a matching ratio from 1st-3rd shot span. 74/122 = .6 chris Nice coincidences...all from someones guesses. And when dealing with math, why round? Still got that whole guess thing to deal with Chris, and you can't. You ever correct YOUR guess about the WC distance to the rifle IN THE WINDOW? And then there is this little question still unanswered... So lay out your complete plat Chris to show you how you screwed up your measurements and your conclusions, by using the wrong numbers and measuring to the wrong places. Or have you corrected your mistakes? Edited June 12, 2013 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted June 12, 2013 Author Share Posted June 12, 2013 Referring back to the Vehicle Speed Analysis chart the ratio of 2.24mph/3.74mph = .6 Converting data changes (Z161-168) provided by the WC. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 (edited) Referring back to the Vehicle Speed Analysis chart the ratio of 2.24mph/3.74mph = .6 Converting data changes (Z161-168) provided by the WC. chris ratios=meaningless About your past MAJOR mistake..you ever gonna deal with that one? Edited June 12, 2013 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted June 13, 2013 Author Share Posted June 13, 2013 It's hard to screw up measurements when accommodating for extra distance. Frame 166 might be an indicator of that. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 It's hard to screw up measurements when accommodating for extra distance. Frame 166 might be an indicator of that. chris But then again you did screw it up in spades. Do I need to post the link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 (edited) I guess I do need to show how Chris screwed up, by not being able to understand what he read. His post: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20094&p=271388 Note he confuses the distance from the chalk mark UP TO the rifle IN THE WINDOW with a fictional distance from the limo to some undefiined point on the base of the TSBD. Really poor work and he has yet ot even admit this gross error. And of course the post pointing all of this out. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20094&p=271417 No one is really paying close attention to his work, and when we do AGAIN it is found he has the basics all wrong. He got caught with wrong measurements on the plat last time and now we find he used other measurements incorrectly. And you just keep digging the hole deeper. You notice not even Davie Jo has stepped up to help you...... Edited June 13, 2013 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted June 13, 2013 Author Share Posted June 13, 2013 Craig, CE884, when you can prove the limo traveled only .9ft from Zframes 161-166 using the extant Zfilm, then you have something to stand on. Until then, you have an altered film. btw, are you finding it difficult from the film to arrive at a Station# for Z166, once you figure it out, then we can talk. It probably has something to do with that .9ft distance. Another coincidence!!!!! Not. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted June 13, 2013 Author Share Posted June 13, 2013 I'll run the scenario for you. 11.2mph average = 16.464ft per sec /18.3fps = .899ft per frame. .899ft per frame x 5 frames = 4.498ft 4.498- .9ft (CE884 161-166) = 3.598ft difference. 30ft/3.598ft = 8.33ft 152 frames 161-313 152/18.3 = 8.30 seconds Relationship Yes. Coincidence No. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 Craig, CE884, when you can prove the limo traveled only .9ft from Zframes 161-166 using the extant Zfilm, then you have something to stand on. Until then, you have an altered film. btw, are you finding it difficult from the film to arrive at a Station# for Z166, once you figure it out, then we can talk. It probably has something to do with that .9ft distance. Another coincidence!!!!! Not. chris No Chris, not an altered film, that's very flawed logic on your part. All you have is bad numbers on a chart that shows he GUESSES created by doing a recreation. I'm really sorry your years of work on this have gone up in flames, but thats the reality of it. 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