Swan-Song -- Math Rules

[Chris Davidson]

Refer to Post#44 for obtaining 13.44mph designation.

[David Josephs]

thanks Chris - now the culmination of WCD298 work and these measurements

We have CE884 revised, Shaneyfelt's line drawing and the FBI's WCD298 measurements https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10699#relPageId=61&tab=page

For WCD298 it states these distances as "hitting the target"

I did the calcs for where the 257' spot at 418,35' was using the difference in distance and the vertical drop and find a drop and distance problem. And also confirm that 419.07 should really be 419.72 (the .646' difference) yet doing the #1 to #3 calcs we get the correct elevation ???

285'-171'=114' / 18.3 = 6.23' vertical drop

423.07' - 6.23' = 416.84'

#3 is shown at 416.83' - math is correct...

Yet does not hold true for #2 - #3

285'-232'=53' / 18.3' = 2.896' vert drop

418.07'-2.896' = 415.74'

Elevations listed is 416.83; 1.09' higher or 19.947 feet further up Elm than the distances suggest...

Are we to throw out Shaneyfelt's drawing and calcs? and what about WCD298's calcs...

Shot #1 at 167 feet and the angles puts it closer to 186 than 207 - i.e. 190?

Thanks again for the help and patience... Your visualization of these figures and the resluting equations and analysis are extraordinary Chris ... keep up the great thinking

DJ

[Chris Davidson]

thanks Chris - now the culmination of WCD298 work and these measurements

We have CE884 revised, Shaneyfelt's line drawing and the FBI's WCD298 measurements https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10699#relPageId=61&tab=page

For WCD298 it states these distances as "hitting the target"

I did the calcs for where the 257' spot at 418,35' was using the difference in distance and the vertical drop and find a drop and distance problem. And also confirm that 419.07 should really be 419.72 (the .646' difference) yet doing the #1 to #3 calcs we get the correct elevation ???

285'-171'=114' / 18.3 = 6.23' vertical drop

423.07' - 6.23' = 416.84'

#3 is shown at 416.83' - math is correct...

Yet does not hold true for #2 - #3

285'-232'=53' / 18.3' = 2.896' vert drop

418.07'-2.896' = 415.74'

Elevations listed is 416.83; 1.09' higher or 19.947 feet further up Elm than the distances suggest...

Are we to throw out Shaneyfelt's drawing and calcs? and what about WCD298's calcs...

Shot #1 at 167 feet and the angles puts it closer to 186 than 207 - i.e. 190?

Thanks again for the help and patience... Your visualization of these figures and the resluting equations and analysis are extraordinary Chris ... keep up the great thinking

DJ

David,

Did you mean to enter 419.07 (The misrepresented elevation of 419.72) in the equation as opposed to 418.07?

chris

[David Josephs]

Yet does not hold true for #2 - #3

285'-232'=53' / 18.3' = 2.896' vert drop

418.07'-2.896' = 415.74'

Elevations listed is 416.83; 1.09' higher or 19.947 feet further up Elm than the distances suggest...

David,

Did you mean to enter 419.07 (The misrepresented elevation of 419.72) in the equation as opposed to 418.07?

chris

Yes of course I did....

419.07 - 2.896 = 416.174 - 416.83 = .656 x 18.3 = 12.005 feet

Add the .656 back to 419.07 = 419.72 which is the same elevation adjustment needed for the #1 to #2 elevation.

yet you mentioned Shaneyfelt maintaining the 61' distance throughout

419.07' = 232' - 61' = 171' from a point called 2+50 (which is 61' from 1+89) yet 2+50 appears to be the corner of the TSBD.

Is it simply the scale of the drawing or ???

Any idea how the WCD298 measurements were created?

[Chris Davidson]

yet you mentioned Shaneyfelt maintaining the 61' distance throughout

419.07' = 232' - 61' = 171' from a point called 2+50 (which is 61' from 1+89) yet 2+50 appears to be the corner of the TSBD.

Look back at the entire post #119.

The match for 61ft you stated above.

Shot #1 @ 171ft to Shot #2 @ 232ft = 61ft.

Shot #2 @ 232ft according to Tom, via Robert West, was the moved location of the extant 313 headshot (notice there is no shot # designation for the extant headshot at elevation 418.35) back east up Elm St.

What are the odds that the distance between a (supposed real shot @171ft and a relocated extant 313 headshot @ 232ft) would equal the distance in post#119 of 61ft?

This is syncing in progress. imo

Added on edit: Station# 2+50 is a location on Elm St, which is in alignment with the sniper's position, within the 6th floor window.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Chris Davidson

[Chris Davidson]

David,

Also, take a look at post #72 again. This is one area that I disagree with Tom's conclusion about Shaneyfelt's erroneous assumption because of the mislabeled elevation of 419.07 instead of the correct 419.72.

To put it another way, this is a telling sign that Shaneyfelt knew exactly what he was doing.

His erroneous assumption in regards to the B.S shot location labeled shot#2 and distance to labeled shot#3 aka the Altgen's shot is 39'8" or 39.66ft.

The limo length is 21.34ft.

These two elements combined = 61ft.

That was the reason why I converted it to 39.66ft.

Now the odds become even more astronomical that none of the 61ft references are connected.

[Chris Davidson]

Any idea how the WCD298 measurements were created?

Set aside the 167ft (shot #1) distance given from WCD298 for a moment.

The WC298 graphic, when compared to extant z207, appears to be the same location.

Added on edit: Now take a look at post #27

Edited June 16, 2016 by Chris Davidson

[David Josephs]

The model in WCD298 says it measures to JFK's head though, not to the front bumper.

I agree that 167' + JFK to Front Bumper: 15' + angle difference = 184'. right??

For shot #2 at 262' & 419.07 (which should be 419.72 or 12 feet further up Elm) Shaneyfelt has 242' yet the distance from #2 to his 418.35' elevation is 25 feet with a drop from 419.07 to 418.35. Except 25 feet down Elm would be 417.70... Add back the .656 between 419.07 and 419.72 and we have 418.35... so that 12 feet was also carried down the street?

I think our problem is the point they are measuring to and the hiding of the distances by moving that point from rear to JFK to front bumper. The front of the limo is a bit over a foot lower than the back and 15/18.3 of a foot from JFK.

Still working it thru in my head... the info in WCD298 is pretty straight forward and was written by the FBI's Leo Gauthier.

There is no escaping their being a shot placed lower down Elm but I believe this is only because they did not have any more room up Elm to place a third shot and once Tague appears in March/April we have the May/June WEST redo removing that post 313 impact location which never existed in the first place. FBI luck or fate?

The 48fps proof is outstanding Chris as this enabled the FBI et al to remove what they needed, leave what was needed and come to some erroneous 18.3 fps rate so that the few 48fps frames left consecutively would not appear so slow.

Thinking out loud... but I do have another question:

Added on edit: Station# 2+50 is a location on Elm St, which is in alignment with the sniper's position, within the 6th floor window.

Then Shanelyfelt putting 2+50 61' down Elm at the start of the decline in his line drawing is obvious

or is the notation saying that 2+50 is 61 feet EAST from the 429.7' elevation at 430.2' elevation.???

[Chris Davidson]

The WCD298 LOS measurement from the snipers nest to JFK in limo is 167ft. Agreed. But this is at z207, not the 184ft LOS shot#1 location on the FBI/SS plat.

The WCD298 graphic LOS I supplied does extend to the limo front, but JFK within the limo at this point is equal to z207 (check zfilm z207). That is the location I am pointing out.

If you check CE884's entry for z207, the LOS from the snipers nest (rifle to JFK's head) is 174.9ft.

A difference of approx 7.9ft between the LOS's.

A few posts back, I plotted the limo traveling from z170-z184 at 14.4mph = 1.156 ft per frame

If I make the assumption the limo was traveling the same speed when it hit z207, 23 frames (1.25 seconds) later, a 7 frame jump z161-z168 same station#

7 x 1.156 = 8.09ft difference

This reconciles the difference's between the two LOS distances (167 -174.9) pertaining only to JFK's position at Station# 3+71.1 as entered on CE884.

Does this make sense before we go on?

[Chris Davidson]

Reconciliation for WCD298 + CE884 at extant z207-Station# 3+71.1

btw: 22.924degrees equals 167ft exactly.

Excerpt from post#105:

How did I arrive at 1.17ft above the windowsill ledge for surveyed zframe 207?

There are a couple of ways to go about this:

The easy way is look at survey frame z207, the 92.07 entry (right side of triangle) equals an elevation of 492.07ft

The windowsill elevation is 490.9ft, look at the top right of the graphic within this post.

Subtract these two and the difference is the rifle height above the windowsill.

Or,

Since I know the WC used 3.27ft as JFK's head elevation in every single frame surveyed (CE884), I can subtract that from the base elevation of the triangle ( 427.02)

and add 3.27ft to the height (65.05) =

427.02 - 3.27 = street elev of 423.75

Subtract this street elev of 423.75 from the windowsill elevation of 490.9ft, since this is to the street.

490.9 - 423.75 = 67.15

and add 3.27ft to the height (65.05) = 68.32 elev

And finally, subtract 68.32 - 67.15 = 1.17ft

[Chris Davidson]

Excerpt from post #122:

This distance equals the exact length of the limo, provided from the WC document in post #3.

256.1" / 12 = 21.34ft

Excerpt from post #123:

And, with the limo at 21.34ft, this horizontal distance, converted back to a vertical elevation in terms of the Elm St. slope (1ft vertical per 18.3ft horizontal) =

21.34/18.3 = 1.166ft

In essence, a match for the determination of the (rifle barrel end) elevation, 1.17ft above the windowsill ledge for surveyed zframe 207

[David Josephs]

Thanks again Chris... I don't have all those individual survey plat pieces, but II sure wish I did.

You didn't address the one question I really needed though... the 2+50 on the Shaneyfelt drawing with the arrow and 61' seems to suggest that elevation 429.7 = 2+50 and it's 61 feet back to the TSBD corner station... that would make the z207 shot at station 3+60 which is more like z190.

Add back that 61 feet and shot #1 is at 4+21 which is about Z262 putting the rear bumper at z242 which is where the NPIC notes places a shot as opposed to LIFE's Z264 which may be the same frame just the front bumper instead of the rear. yes?

I think I understand you are simply showing how the adjustments (sill v muzzle; rear-bumper v JFK v front bumper; street level v JFK's head) are used to place the limo where it needs to be to support the CE884 data.

Large portions of the zfilm are taken at 48fps and cut down 18.3fps with certain 48fps frames left consecutive and intact causing the limo to move much smaller distances frame to frame as well as to hide and sync what was needed.

My speculation - This was always going to be a 3 shot, lone gunman scenario as the "conspiracy related to blaming Castro for killing JFK" was simply a smokescreen to keep people quiet. With 3 shells and numerous hits and misses the authorities needed to solidify the "3 shots no more no less" scenario which began almost immediately afterward. 3 shots & the TSBD.

The "third impact" could not possibly have been where the surveys and WCD298 puts it... so it was ultimately removed thanks to Tague. Many shots becomes 2 impacts and one wild miss in the evidence... except we have WCD298 finished in January which illustrates the FBI results in WCD1 and their official conclusion of 3 shots=3hits.

https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/010/10402/images/img_10402_8_300.png

Yet we know the 4+96 rear bumper shot existed for some time right up to CE875 even though they neglect to take a photo of the stand-in limo at that point

[Michael Walton]

I'm posting this here for new people that visit this site. If you have made it this far into this thread called "Swan Song" (meaning the original author of this post thinks that he's found all of the answers to the case) and "Math Rules" (meaning he thinks math is the best and ultimate way to solve the case) and you're as confused as I am, you're not alone.

To give you some background, there is a clique of JFK assassination researchers who think that the film shot by Abraham Zapruder has been somehow, some way altered. For some reason these people (including the original author of this thread) think the film needed to be altered in some way to show or prove that President Kennedy was assassinated by a single assassin named Lee Harvey Oswald. In other words, the film needed to be altered to remove the elements showing a conspiracy.

I'm here to tell you that despite this thread receiving over 10,000 views, all of the math formulas, pictures, and so on prove nothing. Here are the reasons why this is true:

1. There was *no need* for the government to alter this film;
   
2. The government had no time to alter the film;
   
3. Because the film does show evidence of a frontal shot hitting President Kennedy in the head and, thus, a conspiracy, the film was kept from public view by the government for 12 long years;
   
4. The government made a reenactment film sometime in 1964. This film was an "eyes only" film, meaning it was only for high government officials. In this film, the government included a black and white copy of the Zapruder film. If you watch this film and compare it with the Z film widely available on the internet, you will note that both films look exactly alike;
   
5. Once the government had complete control of the film, they could easily control the message seen in the film. Two instances of this were when CBS reporter Dan Rather described what he saw in the film (but not actually showing it to the public) and completely eliminating the President's violent "back and to the left" movement; and when Life magazine fudged the description of some of the frames printed in their special edition on the assassination.

The points I've outlined above are far more solid evidence of a conspiracy than the math formulas, photos, and drawings posted on this thread. Yet, you will notice that the original author of this thread keeps it alive by continuing to post "updates" to the thread like:

"From extant to exant: 23.4 ft per sec rounded off to the nth degree"

and then a few days later:

"Height of slope in wall x 192 ft. and then rounded to 12.4 mph of the limo"

...and so on. How many versions of a math formula can someone come up with to try to prove the same result over and over again? It's not solving anything and it's being done to keep the thread high up in the HOT rankings of this forum's home page. It all means nothing and I encourage new readers to read elsewhere to learn about the assassination.

[Chris Davidson]

You didn't address the one question I really needed though... the 2+50 on the Shaneyfelt drawing with the arrow and 61' seems to suggest that elevation 429.7 = 2+50 and it's 61 feet back to the TSBD corner station... that would make the z207 shot at station 3+60 which is more like z190.

David,

The 61ft (red line through the word "tree") to the TSBD base, it's the first 61ft along the 171ft distance out to SS/FBI shot1. In other words, that 61ft distance includes no elevation change in the formula.

Elevation of 429.7 is the same at the TSBD base (beginning of 61ft measurement) as it is at Station# 2+50.

[Chris Davidson]

I think I understand you are simply showing how the adjustments (sill v muzzle; rear-bumper v JFK v front bumper; street level v JFK's head) are used to place the limo where it needs to be to support the CE884 data.

Large portions of the zfilm are taken at 48fps and cut down 18.3fps with certain 48fps frames left consecutive and intact causing the limo to move much smaller distances frame to frame as well as to hide and sync what was needed.

My speculation - This was always going to be a 3 shot, lone gunman scenario as the "conspiracy related to blaming Castro for killing JFK" was simply a smokescreen to keep people quiet. With 3 shells and numerous hits and misses the authorities needed to solidify the "3 shots no more no less" scenario which began almost immediately afterward. 3 shots & the TSBD.

The "third impact" could not possibly have been where the surveys and WCD298 puts it... so it was ultimately removed thanks to Tague. Many shots becomes 2 impacts and one wild miss in the evidence... except we have WCD298 finished in January which illustrates the FBI results in WCD1 and their official conclusion of 3 shots=3hits.

https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/010/10402/images/img_10402_8_300.png

Yet we know the 4+96 rear bumper shot existed for some time right up to CE875 even though they neglect to take a photo of the stand-in limo at that point

I think we're getting closer.

All roads point to a shot at extant 207 location. imo

Melded into the shot ( we see on film at Station# 3+81.3. Specter/Shaneyfelt/Ford and the rest to make it happen

Not enough time between shots. Two shooters.

Keep the angle the same, keep the rifle above sill the same, but lose JFK's head height, now measure to the street.