Jump to content
The Education Forum

# Undressing CE884, Randomly

## Recommended Posts

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...

• Replies 35
• Created
• Last Reply

#### Popular Days

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 by Craig Lamson
##### Share on other sites

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 by Craig Lamson
##### Share on other sites

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.

##### Share on other sites

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 by Craig Lamson
##### Share on other sites

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

##### Share on other sites

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 by Craig Lamson
##### Share on other sites

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

##### Share on other sites

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 by Craig Lamson
##### Share on other sites

It's hard to screw up measurements when accommodating for extra distance.

Frame 166 might be an indicator of that.

chris

##### Share on other sites

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?

##### Share on other sites

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 by Craig Lamson
##### Share on other sites

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

##### Share on other sites

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

##### Share on other sites

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.

## Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

### Announcements

×

• #### Support

×
• Create New...