Chris Davidson Posted August 4, 2015 Author Share Posted August 4, 2015 The difference between 2.24mph and 13.44 mph =11.20mph Shaneyfelt can tell you a little more about that figure: Mr. SPECTER. Is that a constant average speed or does that speed reflect any variations in the movement of the car? Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is the overall average from 161 to 313. It does not mean that it was traveling constantly at 11.2, because it was more than likely going faster in some areas and slightly slower in some areas. It is only an average speed over the entire run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted August 5, 2015 Author Share Posted August 5, 2015 If you took a look at CE884 without ever seeing the extant Zfilm, the first 2 entries of Z161-Z166 at 2.24 mph, might give the impression the limo traveled at a constant rate of 2.24mph for the first 166 frames. The alternative is seeing the film, and knowing full well, it is not traveling 2.24mph at Z161-166. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 Mr. KELLEY. The officials at Hess Eisenhardt, who have the original plans of the President's car, conducted a test to ascertain how high from the ground a person 72 1/2 inches would be seated in this car before its modification. And[/size] 132 it was ascertained that the person would be 52.78 inches from the ground--that is, taking into consideration the flexion of the tires, the flexion of the cushions that were on the car at the time. [/size] Chris, I find your 'math' posts quite interesting, so I hope you won't take this as knocking your efforts. As you are obviously interested in attaining the greatest degree of accuracy possible, I submit that while the 'Hess Eisenhardt measurements' use the flexion of the tires and the seat cushions, and state dimensions to the second decimal place they are unaware of, or are ignoring a simple fact that could render their 52.78" calculation in error by several inches. JFK at a standing height of 6' 1/2" does not necessarily have the same SITTING height as another individual of the same standing height. As an example, my two sons are both 73" tall while standing, but there is a 2.75" difference in their heights while sitting. Please continue sharing your fine work with the group. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted August 5, 2015 Author Share Posted August 5, 2015 Tom, Thanks for taking an interest. I understand and appreciate the point you are making. I can only use (math-wise) that, which is provided to me, and hopefully show an ulterior motive for why they used the figures that they did. In my opinion, it becomes less coincidental, and more contrived, the farther along I get. Others can choose to believe that my original equation is just coincidental, I happen to believe differently. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted August 5, 2015 Author Share Posted August 5, 2015 If you took a look at CE884 without ever seeing the extant Zfilm, the first 2 entries of Z161-Z166 at 2.24 mph, might give the impression the limo traveled at a constant rate of 2.24mph for the first 166 frames. The alternative is seeing the film, and knowing full well, it is not traveling 2.24mph at Z161-166. I would assume by now, most know I believe there was a head shot some 30ft farther down Elm St. than the extant 313 headshot. To put this 30ft difference in terms of 166 frames, I would address it this way: 166.66 frames/18.3 frames per sec = 9.107sec 30ft/9.107 sec = 3.294ft sec = 2.24mph chris P.S. Why 166.66 frames? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted August 6, 2015 Author Share Posted August 6, 2015 I don't want to stray too far from the original equation just yet. So I'll leave the 166.66 frames question at this for now: The attachment is another CE884 in essence, which was on the May 1964 West WC Plat final. The same entries for Z161-Z166 (5 frame) span on the previous CE884 document, were changed to reflect a (3 frame span) Z168-Z171 on the May 1964 version. Thus a 5/3 ratio = 1.6666 when multiplied by 100 will yield 166.66 100frames/18.3 frames per sec = 5.464 sec 30ft/5.464 sec = 5.49ft per sec = 3.735mph Or, when compared back to the 3 frame entry (Z168-Z171) traveling .9ft, a match of 3.735mph occurs chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted August 6, 2015 Author Share Posted August 6, 2015 Mark, Let me start this one by addressing the 3.54 inches (from the original equation) in terms of a conversion. 3.54inches/12inches (1ft) = .295ft .295 x 18.3ft = 5.3985ft Remember, this 18.3ft refers to a horizontal distance traveled in conjunction with a 1ft rise for the Elm St slope of 3.13°. The 10 inch part of the equation when converted would be: 10inches/12inches (1ft) = .8333ft .8333 x 18.3ft = 15.25ft Remember, this 18.3ft refers to a horizontal distance traveled in conjunction with a 1ft rise for the Elm St slope of 3.13°. A 10 inch vertical rise = 15.25ft horizontal move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted August 7, 2015 Author Share Posted August 7, 2015 The part of the equation that totals 13.54 inches: (52.78 - (10+3.54) = 3.27ft) converts to a horizontal distance traveled of 20.65ft(15.25 + 5.4ft) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 So we're seeing a bit of sleight-of-hand with the math, as it regards the 10-inch vertical distance vs. the horizontal distance. As a good friend used to say: "Don't surprise me none...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted August 7, 2015 Author Share Posted August 7, 2015 (edited) The part of the equation that totals 13.54 inches: (52.78 - (10+3.54) = 3.27ft) converts to a horizontal distance traveled of 20.65ft(15.25 + 5.4ft) Obviously the .9ft traveled for the initial two entries on CE884 is incorrect. But, when put into context with a 13.54 inch vertical rise = 20.65ft horizontal change, a total distance arises. 20.65ft - .9ft =19.75ft In terms of 1second and mph, 19.75ft per sec = 13.435mph. Since that .9ft lands circa Z161- Z166 which I mentioned previously as being plotted with the limo traveling 13.44mph, I believe their is a distinct correlation between vertical span within the "equation" and this part of the extant Zfilm. And, circa Z156 through extant Z166 (which plots at Station# 3+30.1, using JFK aligned with the background light signal post) appears to be a major pivot point in this "sleight of hand" charade. Edited August 7, 2015 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted August 9, 2015 Author Share Posted August 9, 2015 Since that .9ft lands circa Z161- Z166 which I mentioned previously as being plotted with the limo traveling 13.44mph, I believe their is a distinct correlation between vertical span within the "equation" and this part of the extant Zfilm. And, circa Z156 through extant Z166 (which plots at Station# 3+30.1, using JFK aligned with the background light signal post) appears to be a major pivot point in this "sleight of hand" charade. Yes, A major point indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Lloyd Posted August 10, 2015 Share Posted August 10, 2015 (edited) i.e. suspect the light post created an obstruction?... Edited August 10, 2015 by Ian Lloyd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted August 10, 2015 Author Share Posted August 10, 2015 Ian, Your comment could be the end result of what was partially done to the film. I believe at this time, it is more important to think in terms of "differences". The assassination, at least according to the extant Zfilm, is an "equation" of differences. If you look at my previous 2 frame graphic, the span of frames is Z157-Z166 and Z167-Z176. Two spans of nine frames each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted August 11, 2015 Author Share Posted August 11, 2015 Since that .9ft lands circa Z161- Z166 which I mentioned previously as being plotted with the limo traveling 13.44mph, I believe their is a distinct correlation between vertical span within the "equation" and this part of the extant Zfilm. And, circa Z156 through extant Z166 (which plots at Station# 3+30.1, using JFK aligned with the background light signal post) appears to be a major pivot point in this "sleight of hand" charade. Yes, A major point indeed. The comparison scale included within the two nine frame spans = 1.25ft per increment. You can use subtraction to arrive at the "difference" in distance between the two. While your at it, please note the actual distance of each span. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted August 12, 2015 Author Share Posted August 12, 2015 11.75 increments x 1.25ft = 14.6875ft 3.75 increments x 1.25ft = 4.68 ft Difference = 10ft Robert West determination of shot - physical location extant Z207- Station# 3+71.1 SS/FBI determination of said shot - physical location----------------- Station# 3+81.3 Difference = 10.2ft 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