Unveiling The Limo Stop

[Chris Davidson]

21 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

My plotting of z301-z313 = 7.2ft

7.2ft /12 frames = .6ft per frame x 18.3fps = 10.98ft per sec / 1.47 = 7.47mph

.6ft per frame at twice the frames = .3ft per frame (see previous posting for appropriate explanation)

As you mentioned, the other data CE884 document was a remnant of the instantaneous speed change.

Those top two entries were then changed from z161-z166 to z168-z171, right away an obvious frame change at the same distance, which adversely affects the speed.

The speed for z168-z171 = 18.3/3 = 6.1 x .9ft = 5.49ft per sec = 3.74 mph = .3ft per frame

The limo wasn't traveling at 3.74mph at this point either

Removing alternating frames from a film where a vehicle is traveling at 3.74mph = .3 ft per frame(near the headshots) will increase the vehicle speed to 7.47mph.

This would be an example of an "instantaneous remnant" adjustment used in calculating the alteration of the original film.

 

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

One last comment on this for now.

What affect would this have over a 1 second time period. Look no further than the z168-186 frame span.

18frames converted to 18.3 frames = 1 second is 18.3/18 = 1.01666...  multiplier

21.6ft distance (z168-186) x 1.01666 multiplier = 21.96ft per sec/1.47 = 14.94mph

Now subtract the bogus 3.74mph span of z168-z171 from the overall speed of 14.94mph

14.94 - 3.74 = 11.2mph

Who was responsible for the z168-z171 bogus entry?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; because we were able to determine the speed of the camera, and thereby accurately determine the length of time it takes for a specific number of frames to run through the camera at this 18.3 frames per second, and having located these frame positions in the street, we took the farthest distance point we had in the Zapruder film which was frame 161 through frame 313.
This was found to run elapsed time from the film standpoint which runs at 18.3 frames a second, runs for a total of 8.3 seconds.
This distance is 136.1 feet, and this can be calculated then to 11.2 miles per hour.
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.
Mr. DULLES. Over the entire run between what points?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Between frame 161 and 313.

So, do you think he was rounding up 11.15mph to 11.2 or did he get mixed up with the BS he was calculating for the alterations.

Enjoy the video of Shaneyfelt marking z168+171 on the street.

That is Robert West(Surveyor) with the cowboy hat on.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZSXri67dj1Hef5RAdWMiZj1MK7vnrg2g/view?usp=sharing

 

[Paul Bacon]

3 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

"The limo did not travel 2.24 mph from extant z161-z166, it just represented the difference in average speed from z161-z313 when 38 frames were removed from that span." - C Davidson

 

or in other words - The survey was done with a film that no longer matched the measurements taken. There isn't enough Elm Street between the Surveyed points to model a car moving at reasonably constant speed (Between Z161 and Z313), so the measurements have been fiddled. (There is another copy of the table showing the fiddling, obtained from the surveyor)

 

I hope that explanation is good enough to catch anybody up whose interested.

If it isn't Chris will help.

 

 

Eddy, thanks for this.  It helps.  I hope you continue.

I am transfixed by Chris's analyses.  Like the Math Rules thread, it's dense.  It takes time and concentration to follow the numbers, and I'm doing very poorly.  But, at this point, I have a decent picture of what the analysis is revealing.  Unbelievable work from Chris!

 

[Chris Davidson]

4 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Add 38 frames to the overall span from z161-z313.

That would make the new equation: 152 + 38 = 190frames/136.1ft

 

 

 

 

 

What I purposely left out of this was the elapsed time of 8.3 seconds (152frames@18.3fps)

A camera that shot the extra 38 frames (190 total) in that same 8.3 sec would actually be filming at 22.89fps.

The frame rate (167 Towner frames) closely matches the fps adjustment by Myers in the form of Tina Towner's Sears Verizoom 8mm camera.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

35 minutes ago, Paul Bacon said:

Eddy, thanks for this.  It helps.  I hope you continue.

I am transfixed by Chris's analyses.  Like the Math Rules thread, it's dense.  It takes time and concentration to follow the numbers, and I'm doing very poorly.  But, at this point, I have a decent picture of what the analysis is revealing.  Unbelievable work from Chris!

 

Paul, if nothing else, very important to concentrate on the bold type moving forward.

I'll continue with the connection to it in a bit.

Below could be more likely because the .3ft per frame limo speed is what was used regarding alteration calculations.

z280-z313 = 23.73ft
21 x 2 = 42 frames
12 x 2 = 24 frames
              66 frames / (23.73-3.93) = 19.8ft = .3ft per frame

 

 

[Mark Tyler]

8 hours ago, Daniel Rice said:

It's either a '63 or '64 Mercury Station Wagon.

Thanks Daniel, I think you are right.  Here are a couple of photos of the 1964 Mercury Colony Park Station Wagon:

The license plate, lights, corners above the lights, and the small circular area beneath the rear window seem to match.  This also looks to be a match for the VIP car in the motorcade as seen in the Willis 6 photo:

Credit to Todd Wayne Vaughan's motorcade reference for confirming this car model:

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/M Disk/Motorcade Route/Item 15.pdf

Now we just need to find a few videos of this car model signalling to turn.  I've not found any yet, but if any reader does find a video please share the link so we can try and confirm the Wiegman film frame rate!

[Chris Davidson]

46 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Paul, if nothing else, very important to concentrate on the bold type moving forward.

I'll continue with the connection to it in a bit.

Below could be more likely because the .3ft per frame limo speed is what was used regarding alteration calculations.

z280-z313 = 23.73ft
21 x 2 = 42 frames
12 x 2 = 24 frames
              66 frames / (23.73-3.93) = 19.8ft = .3ft per frame

 

 

Working from the parameters below, referencing the work above:

30ft / 166.66frames = .18ft per frame = 2.24mph

30ft / 100frames = .3ft per frame = 3.74 mph

166.66 - 100 frames = 66.66 frames in essence a match for total frames remaining in the original film span before frame excision, not including the car stop frames.

19.8ft + 10.2ft = 30ft

10.2ft / .3ft per frame = 34 frames

66 + 34 =100 frames

Keep the 166frame/frame166 figure fresh for the next post.

           

[Chris Davidson]

2 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Working from the parameters below, referencing the work above:

30ft / 166.66frames = .18ft per frame = 2.24mph

30ft / 100frames = .3ft per frame = 3.74 mph

166.66 - 100 frames = 66.66 frames in essence a match for total frames remaining in the original film span before frame excision, not including the car stop frames.

19.8ft + 10.2ft = 30ft

10.2ft / .3ft per frame = 34 frames

66 + 34 =100 frames

Keep the 166frame/frame166 figure fresh for the next post.

           

Final goal was to wind up with 30ft spent and half the 66.66 frames excised so it would keep sync with Shaneyfelt's ultimate goal of 11.2mph. 

30ft/33.33frames = .9ft per frame x 18.3 = 16.47ft per sec / 1.47 = 11.2mph

btw, notice the ft per frame rate for 11.2mph = the matching BS distance used for the span traveled for z161-z166 and z168-z171.

Another remnant.

Onto the 166frame/frame166 next.

[Chris Davidson]

On 5/10/2020 at 2:03 PM, Chris Davidson said:

My plotting of z301-z313 = 7.2ft

7.2ft /12 frames = .6ft per frame x 18.3fps = 10.98ft per sec / 1.47 = 7.47mph

.6ft per frame at twice the frames = .3ft per frame (see previous posting for appropriate explanation)

If nothing else, pay attention to the published numbers:

They start off with 100ft arriving at z166. Convert it.

100ft/166frames = .6ft per frame = 7.47 mph- That is a speed match(before the frame excision) for the "at least" 12 extant zframes(see above) before the extant 313 headshot.

They're setting up the front end of the altered equation to coincide with CE884 data charts.

btw, I'm well aware that there weren't 166 frames from StationC to extant z166.

 

 

 

Edited May 12, 2020 by Chris Davidson

[Daniel Gallup]

On 5/9/2020 at 12:54 PM, Chuck Schwartz said:

Chris, also, there were some witnesses that said the limo stopped:

1) Jean Hill (who stood to the immediate left of the limousine with her friend Mary Moorman during the assassination), in her Sheriff’s Dept. affidavit of 11/22/63, stated that the limousine stopped for an instant;
(2) Hugh Betzner (standing behind the limousine during the assassination), in his Sheriff’s Dept. affidavit of 11/22/63, said twice that the limousine stopped during the assassination;
(3) Roy Truly, Oswald’s boss at the TSBD, later stated that the limousine swerved to the left and stopped during the assassination;
(4) DPD officer Bobby W. Hargis—riding escort to the immediate left rear of the limousine—in an interview never published by a local newspaper, but whose text was later found and written about by Richard Trask in his book Pictures of the Pain, stated that the limousine stopped during the assassination; and
(5) In numerous interviews over many years, Bill Newman (standing to the immediate right of the limousine during the assassination with his wife and two children) has repeatedly and consistently recalled that there was a very brief, but definite car stop by the limousine during the assassination

 

Don't forget Toni Foster, the running woman.  Debra had an excellent interview with her in the KAC around 2000, the summer I think.  She is an excellent witness to the limo stop,

[Chris Davidson]

37 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

If nothing else, pay attention to the published numbers

 

 

 

167frames(Myers total for Towner) is awfully close to either 166 or 166.66...

If the Z film didn't start until extant z133 and Towner's camera was not seen by investigators until 1967, what film piece was used by the WC back in 1963/1964 to plot the limo at StationC which resides in the middle of the turn from Houston St onto Elm?

Gary Mack:
“In reply to your questions, the camera original Towner film has one splice about 2/3 of the way through the limo turn onto Elm Street. Since the film was never examined by government investigators, the splice was first noticed by Robert Groden, who served as a consultant to the HSCA photo panel in 1978.
From what Tina and Jim Towner told me over the years, they had no knowledge of how or when that splice was made. What is known is that the film was developed for them by The Dallas Morning News within a few days of the assassination; available records suggest the film was never seen by investigators until the HSCA. The only other time the film was out of the Towner’s possession was when LIFE magazine borrowed it from them in 1967 for publication in their November issue about Kennedy assassination photographers.”

Dale Myers:

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

23 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

A

 

 

 

After StationC, next up is "PositionA" or simply A in the data chart above.

Once again, how/why do we have a plotted position if  there was no available footage at this street location.

If the first available film footage without "Towner in authorities hands" was extant z133, why didn't they just start the data chart at extant z133?

Because at this point, it would have revealed the 33 frame jump count to the original film.

You understand don't you, they had to accommodate for a 33 frame removal(with five additional) circa the extant 313 headshot.

 

 

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

16 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Final goal was to wind up with 30ft spent and half the 66.66 frames excised so it would keep sync with Shaneyfelt's ultimate goal of 11.2mph. 

30ft/33.33frames = .9ft per frame x 18.3 = 16.47ft per sec / 1.47 = 11.2mph

btw, notice the ft per frame rate for 11.2mph = the matching BS distance used for the span traveled for z161-z166 and z168-z171.

 

 

Look no further than z133-z161/z166 for the 30ft/33frame combo to appear.

For sake of confusion(z161-z166 BS distance traveled), plot Cutler/Sprague  z133 at Station 3+00.1 vs CE884 z166 at 3+30.1 .

330.1-300.1 = 30ft

z133-z166 = 33 frames

 

 

 

[Chris Davidson]

Speaking of starting the extant zfilm with a frame designation of 133:

z133 -z166 = 33 frames - z161-z313 = 152 frames

33 +152 = 185 frames (Remember that 190-185 = 5frames + 33 more frames missing for a total of 38.)

The 5 in this case being the crossover from z161-z166, you understand, the BS area of z161-z166 @ .9ft

Put z133 at its correct station# of 299.0 - z313 = station# 465.3 subtract these for a distance of 166.3 ft.(There's that 166 figure again, this time in a distance form)

166.3ft/185frames = .8989ft per sec = 11.19mph- Shaneyfelt hits his mark again

It would have become quite obvious relative to the original zfilm what the rate/time/distance problems were.

Instead, we were given a 24fps SS film(entirely helpful if you decipher it).

I did this work long ago, and missed it by one frame 133-322 = 189 frames

Enjoy

 

 

 

[Eddy Bainbridge]

One of the elements of Chris Davidson's research that is very important to understand is that the information started coming out very early. Life magazine published frames from the Z frame in 29th November 1963. The reaction to the release of information appears to have modified the information released later, and may have required further modification to the film.

I have just watched the film of the first re-enactment carried out in Dealey Plaza (27th November 1963), perhaps the re-enactment may have influenced the Life article? During the film a man appears to be placing cones at three points on Elm Street. From his movements it looks like the cone positions are already known to him, as his movement is fast. Has anyone ever calculated where these cones are? I'm hoping the positions reveal an early official opinion on shot locations.