Tom Neal Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 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. Chris, I believe you are postulating a 2nd headshot that was excised from the film, or are you saying the first and only headshot was moved 30 feet back up mainstreet? Thanks, Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted August 12, 2015 Author Share Posted August 12, 2015 Tom, Sorry about that. Poorly worded. Yes, two head shots. Approx 30ft apart. Possibly, the extant 313 headshot on film, occurred 30ft farther west down Elm St. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Lloyd Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Didn't the late Mr Purvis subscribe to a/the head shot being further down Elm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted August 12, 2015 Author Share Posted August 12, 2015 Yes Ian, Tom P. = 2 head shots. 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 Let's see what Shaneyfelt was up to in relation to that 10ft sprocket hole "difference". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted August 13, 2015 Author Share Posted August 13, 2015 If the anomalies in the extant Zfilm can be reproduced with a math equation, is it indicative of what was applied to the original film? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 Tom, Sorry about that. Poorly worded. Yes, two head shots. Approx 30ft apart. Possibly, the extant 313 headshot on film, occurred 30ft farther west down Elm St. chris Thanks Chris, That's what I thought you meant, but I wanted to be certain. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted August 17, 2015 Author Share Posted August 17, 2015 (edited) 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°. Mark and Tom, I have supplied this forum with two versions of CE884. I will refer to them by color. "White" background and "Orange" background. If one will look at the entries for Z168-Z186 on the 'Orange" version, this is an 18 frame span. To convert to a one second span in terms of the Zfilm, I would have to divide 18/18.3 = .983 seconds. The entries for Z168-Z171, the first part of the Z168-Z186 span, has the limo traveling a distance of .9ft. It would look like this over a one second span: 18.3frames per sec/3 frames = 6.1 x .9ft traveled = 5.49ft traveled in a second. But, we are talking about 18 frames or .983 seconds as shown above. So, 5.49ft x .983 = 5.3967ft. Look at the "quote" above. Once again, what does 3.54 vertical inches represent? If nothing else: The ability to understand this completed circle, will help you realize that the Zfilm has at least been altered to accommodate this scenario. Edited August 17, 2015 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted August 17, 2015 Author Share Posted August 17, 2015 Let me state it a bit differently: Throw out the distance traveled from Z168-Z171= .9ft from the 18frame span. You now have a 20.7ft span traveled in 15 frames. To convert in terms of a full second = 18.3/15 = 1.22 x 20.7ft = 25.254ft per sec = 17.18mph 17.18 mph - (3.74mph= (Z168-Z171speed)= 13.44mph 13.44mph = see post 15 of this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted August 17, 2015 Author Share Posted August 17, 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) And, just so we don't forget about the other "10 inch" vertical part of the "original" equation, that sum total of 20.65ft approx matches the remaining distance of Z171-Z186. Missed by .05ft = 1/2inch in horizontal distance. Probably a "rounding off" difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted August 18, 2015 Author Share Posted August 18, 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°. Mark and Tom, I have supplied this forum with two versions of CE884. I will refer to them by color. "White" background and "Orange" background. If one will look at the entries for Z168-Z186 on the 'Orange" version, this is an 18 frame span. To convert to a one second span in terms of the Zfilm, I would have to divide 18/18.3 = .983 seconds. The entries for Z168-Z171, the first part of the Z168-Z186 span, has the limo traveling a distance of .9ft. It would look like this over a one second span: 18.3frames per sec/3 frames = 6.1 x .9ft traveled = 5.49ft traveled in a second. But, we are talking about 18 frames or .983 seconds as shown above. So, 5.49ft x .983 = 5.3967ft. Look at the "quote" above. Once again, what does 3.54 vertical inches represent? If nothing else: The ability to understand this completed circle, will help you realize that the Zfilm has at least been altered to accommodate this scenario. Applying this same method to the "white" version will yield this result: Z161-Z186 = 25 frames/18.3 frames per sec = 1.366seconds. The speed of the limo from Z161-Z166 (.9ft traveled) = 2.24mph = 3.294ft per sec 3.294ft per sec x 1.366seconds = 4.5ft total distance The difference between the "white and orange" versions for the same distance traveled of 21.6ft is (4.5ft and 5.4ft) = .9ft This equals the distance given for the travel of the limo in both CE884 versions for Z161-Z166 and Z168-Z171. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted August 18, 2015 Author Share Posted August 18, 2015 In case you didn't realize it, that ratio of 4.5/5.4 converted = .8333ft 10 inches converted to a decimal (10/12) in terms of feet = .8333ft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted August 18, 2015 Author Share Posted August 18, 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. Now, I'll throw Shaneyfelt's 11.2 mph quote back into the equation using the previous posts 21.6ft total distance traveled from Z168-Z186. 21.6ft - 5.4 ft = 16.2ft x (18.3/18) the conversion to 1 second of time. 16.2ft x (18.3/18) = 16.47ft per sec = 11.2mph Amazing how that matches the overall average speed from Z161-Z313. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted August 20, 2015 Author Share Posted August 20, 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°. I've shown the direct connection between the "3.54inch" vertical to "5.4ft" horizontal distance. I consider that more of the "inner equation" and want to expand outward a bit. Since I've been adamant about that 30ft difference in shots, I'll connect that back to the "inner equation". To begin: 5.4ft/30ft = .18ft .18ft x 5 frames = .9ft. .9ft = Distance traveled in 5 frames(Z161-Z166) on the CE884 "White" version and 3 frames(Z168-Z171) traveled on CE884 "orange" version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted August 21, 2015 Author Share Posted August 21, 2015 Now, flip the ratio around to: 30ft/5.4ft = 5.556 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