Chris Davidson Posted February 18, 2018 Author Share Posted February 18, 2018 Of course they needed the correct height adjustment to coincide with that distance split: 10" + 3.54" = 13.54" / 12 = 1.1283...ft x 18.3 = 20.6485ft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 18, 2018 Author Share Posted February 18, 2018 And that was conveyed by JFK's head height above the pavement 52.78" - 39.24"(3.27ft) = (BS head height entry in CE884) = 13.54" span. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 18, 2018 Author Share Posted February 18, 2018 The shot placement directly across(not 10.2ft west of z313) from Altgen's at Station# 4+96.16 is required by the time allotment given to one shooter. The extant film as shown is missing two frames between the span of extant z313-z352. That is a 39 frame span with 2 missing for a total of 41 frames. What was the significance of 41/42 frames? Mr. SHANEYFELT. The camera operates at a speed of 18.3 frames per second. So that in two and a quarter seconds it would run through about 42--41 to 42 frames. Representative FORD. Then the firing of the rifle, repeat that again? Mr. SHANEYFELT. As to the firing of the rifle we have been advised that the minimum time for getting off two successive well-aimed shots on the rifle is approximately two and a quarter seconds. That is the basis for using this 41 to 42 frames to establish two points in the film where two successive quick shots could have been fired. Once again, trying to tie all shooting back to the 6th floor snipers nest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 18, 2018 Author Share Posted February 18, 2018 The limo length is 21.34ft. Station #5+00 - Station # 4+96.16 = 3.84ft = approx 4ft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 MATH RULES!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 (edited) Who do we suppose put Shaneyfelt, Frasier, Gauthier, Eisenberg, Redlich and the rest to change CE585 and CE884.... Thinking Robert West too ???? to catch on.... Edited April 12, 2018 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 (edited) What's really hilarious here is that a simple error by the FBI in saying that the shots occurred in the above photo was just that - an error. Big deal. Yet, we have a sync of two different films on YouTube (below). All you have to do is watch it and it merely shows two things - the films match up perfectly, and two - that the FBI was wrong with this diorama that they made. Fine. It DOES NOT mean what Chris and Dave want it to mean - that some other mysterious and unseen Z film exists. In other words, because of an error in the above diorama Chris and Dave believe that a whole other Z film exists - haha! What a joke. And this happens all of the time on this forum and elsewhere. On another thread, other nutty CTers think that because someone wrote FAILED on Oswald's dental chart that it means there was a CLONE of Oswald without stopping to think that again it could be a more plausible and simpler explanation - a clerical error, two different people recording the records, etc. Haha! But I'm sure Chris and Dave will keep plugging away with their calculators here thinking they've solved something - Haha! What a disgrace to the JFK research community trying to get to the truth of the matter. Is it any wonder why people laugh at the JFK "research" community when they come across this kind of malarkey. And go to the beginning of this thread - this all started when Chris says that the secret agents fired over the tops of spectators from the pavilion for crying out load. And Josephs disagreed with him and when I mentioned that he said he said that "...in jest." Haha! Edited February 18, 2018 by Michael Walton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 19, 2018 Author Share Posted February 19, 2018 5 hours ago, David Josephs said: MATH RULES!!! Where was the 30.86ft split applied to the Position A part of the ballfield: Sprague designates JFK@ z133 to Station # 299.0, which is where I plotted him also. I believe we were a slight bit off and JFK actually plots at 299.16 or 1.92 inches difference. 299.16 - 30.86ft = Station 268.3 Station# 268.3 + 10.2ft = Station # 278.5 Position A = Station# 278.5 This can be determined by using the WC data readily available: z161 = 329.2 - 94.7 = Station C = 234.5 234.5 + 44 = 278.5 = Position A The WC math-ical mystery tour. P.S. Position A is not plotted on Robert West's path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 20, 2018 Share Posted February 20, 2018 So Chris... what becomes apparent to me is the arbitrary location for STATION C... As Shaneyfelt puts it, "The spot where the limo would have turned off Houston onto Elm"... does this suggested it didn't? I did this to show that STATION C can lead to either path... despite POSTION A not being on the limo's path and NOT the last place where the mark on the back of the stand-in can be seen... POSITION A is included and critical... z161, which was actually z168 in the final numbering of frames becomes THE spot... but only after May '64... before that it was 168 and the fabrication/alteration of material fact begins.... Mr. SHANEYFELT. The first position we established that morning was frame 161. Mr. SPECTER. Was there not a position established prior in sequence to frame 161, specifically that designated as position A? Mr. SHANEYFELT. That was actually established later. But the first one to be actually located was 161. And we went back later and positioned point A. Mr. SPECTER. Well, let's start with the position which is the most easterly point on Elm Street, which I believe would be position A, would it not? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 21, 2018 Author Share Posted February 21, 2018 On 2/18/2018 at 10:37 AM, David Josephs said: Thinking Robert West too ???? to catch on.... West knew they were up to no good. Probably not all the specifics. He documented and kept what he could or felt safe with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 21, 2018 Author Share Posted February 21, 2018 On 2/20/2018 at 8:09 AM, David Josephs said: So Chris... what becomes apparent to me is the arbitrary location for STATION C... As Shaneyfelt puts it, "The spot where the limo would have turned off Houston onto Elm"... does this suggested it didn't? I did this to show that STATION C can lead to either path... despite POSTION A not being on the limo's path and NOT the last place where the mark on the back of the stand-in can be seen... POSITION A is included and critical... z161, which was actually z168 in the final numbering of frames becomes THE spot... but only after May '64... before that it was 168 and the fabrication/alteration of material fact begins.... David, I tend to treat StationC in sync relationship to the TSBD. Two endpoints if you will. StationC = Station# 234.5 TSBD = Station# 250.0 That is a distance difference of 15.5 ft They should have advanced a distance of 15.25ft (10" drop) = 15.25ft 18.3 /18 = 1.0166.. - Conversion between determined frame rate and whole frames. 1.01666.. x 15.25 = 15.50ft Just as 30.86ft was used as a retard and advance concept (shown previously), why not some form of that here. Arbitrarily set. I agree. Position A, still working on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 22, 2018 Author Share Posted February 22, 2018 (edited) On 2/21/2018 at 8:33 AM, Chris Davidson said: West knew they were up to no good. Probably not all the specifics. He documented and kept what he could or felt safe with. This is how crafty the WC was in obtaining their desired goals: Robert West's survey information for extant z207 lists a right triangle of: base=162.34ft height=65.05ft hypotenuse = 174.88ft It was determined(don't know by whom- see plat) that 61ft from the TSBD base, along that same extant z207 base measurement, the Elm St. slope of 3.13 degrees began. The change in elevation would calculate like this: 162.34 - 61= 101.34ft / 18.3ft (1ft Vertical change) = 5.53ft vertical change. Base to 6th floor window sill = 61.2ft Rifle end to Window sill = 1.17ft Total elevation above street = 67.9ft 67.9ft -3.27ft(CE884 -JFK determined back shot elevation) = 64.63ft Do you see see the difference in vertical elevation? JFK was shot in the back at physical location extant z207/z208. Edited February 22, 2018 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 22, 2018 Author Share Posted February 22, 2018 When converted, the difference in elevation from 65.05ft to 64.63ft = .42ft = 5.04 inches. 3.27ft (39.24inches) - 5.04 inches = 34.2 inches = 2.85ft The difference between 3.27 and 2.85ft = .42ft = elevation change difference in extant survey z207. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 22, 2018 Author Share Posted February 22, 2018 JFK's shirt collar appears to be 1.5 inches in height. If anyone knows differently, please feel free to chime in. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l1j92AXGJTsr1vP7KPEmhSYmkMr0hzfT/view?usp=sharing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 22, 2018 Author Share Posted February 22, 2018 Credit Tom Purvis via Robert West: Conversion coming. 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