Chris Bristow Posted February 26, 2023 Share Posted February 26, 2023 On 2/23/2023 at 11:24 PM, Chris Davidson said: Sorry, I think I mis-identified that as Shaneyfelt on the pedestal, as he was known to wear hawaiian shirts and appears to have grey/white hair in other videos. The other photo of the hat man, in the same position as I mis-identified Shaneyfelt, is Barnes I believe. Irregardless, we agree they are in the same location upon the pedestal. Is it possible for you to estimate the difference in camera height between these two frames: Thanks, The camera is about 5 or 6 inches higher than Z's camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 26, 2023 Author Share Posted February 26, 2023 Thanks for working that out for me. So, is it safe to say, that the camera height for the Barnes photo was at the same/approx height as the reenactment frames I have been providing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 26, 2023 Author Share Posted February 26, 2023 (edited) Both frames shot with the Z camera. 5-7 inches of vertical to accommodate 3.13° angular, among other anomalies previously discussed. Added on edit: The Zframe in the top gif which is what I originally posted, is at the wrong aspect ratio. I corrected it, which required a 7% height reduction. The bottom gif is the corrected version. My apology for that. Edited February 27, 2023 by Chris Davidson Zapruder frame has the wrong aspect ratio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bristow Posted February 27, 2023 Share Posted February 27, 2023 On 2/25/2023 at 10:35 PM, Chris Davidson said: Thanks for working that out for me. So, is it safe to say, that the camera height for the Barnes photo was at the same/approx height as the reenactment frames I have been providing? Yes the Barnes photo looks very close for the camera height. My hard drive just took a dump so I can't do much right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 28, 2023 Author Share Posted February 28, 2023 The enlargement is frame 206 at left. I'll call it bobble-suit: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted March 1, 2023 Author Share Posted March 1, 2023 On 2/25/2023 at 11:36 PM, Chris Davidson said: Both frames shot with the Z camera. 5-7 inches of vertical to accommodate 3.13° angular, among other anomalies previously discussed. Added on edit: The Zframe in the top gif which is what I originally posted, is at the wrong aspect ratio. I corrected it, which required a 7% height reduction. The bottom gif is the corrected version. My apology for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted March 1, 2023 Author Share Posted March 1, 2023 10 hours ago, Chris Davidson said: btw, The alterationists left us a remnant in the splice frame that will close the door on what you have previously been shown. If anyone cares to point it out, I'll supply the necessary adjustment in a gif. Until then, let me introduce a chess analogy for the same lateral/angular process used. It's time to move away from the graphics for just a bit with some simple math to tie even more of this together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 1, 2023 Share Posted March 1, 2023 18 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said: If anyone cares to point it out, I'll supply the necessary adjustment in a gif. The remnant of the original lower sprocket hole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted March 1, 2023 Author Share Posted March 1, 2023 54 minutes ago, David Josephs said: The remnant of the original lower sprocket hole? Actually, the lower sprocket hole is a great answer, which no doubt, was altered. But, I should have been more specific. A remnant on the Stemmons Sign is what I'm looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted March 1, 2023 Author Share Posted March 1, 2023 (edited) 14 hours ago, Chris Davidson said: It's interesting, how many people have written off the reenactments as "less than perfect" attempts to obtain the truth. The fact is, the reenactments were far more accurate in hiding the alterations. Just as with the camera height on the pedestal not being quite the same height as what the extant Z camera was, this was also applied in terms of vehicle speed. The gif above has the limo starting in the same location in both, when using the traffic signal light post in the background. Running it from the beginning thru to the extant Z207 splice frame = 41 frames, which is reflected as a distance traveled of 41ft via CE884. 41ft/41frames - One ft. per one frame hmm!!! The immediate tipoff besides two different CE884 documents, is the listing of frame 166/171 in the same location. The QueenMary in the reenactment session only takes 32 frames vs the 41 to arrive at the extant z207 location. (They knew the true speed of the limo) 41/32 = QueenMary traveling 1.28x faster in that span. 1ft per one frame = 18.3ft persec/1.47 = 12.44mph 12.44mph x 1.28 = 15.92mph 15.92mph - 12.44 = 3.48mph x 1.47 = 5.11ft in one second = 18.3frames If this simple math gets too complicated just ask for refinements. Edited March 1, 2023 by Chris Davidson Add graphic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted March 2, 2023 Author Share Posted March 2, 2023 The QueenMary reenactment speed difference(z166-z207) was approx 3.48mph = 5.11ft. Since the WC knew that plotting the limo on its correct path would reveal more of the true events, they had to alter the limo path (using dots) instead of using Robert West's + marks. When plotted, it looks like this using an LOS from the Z pedestal. The blue lines are indicative of the distance difference between West's marks and the WC limo path in the extant Zfilm. That distance(5.1ft) equaling the speed difference of 3.48mph over 41 extant zframes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted March 2, 2023 Author Share Posted March 2, 2023 Looking previously at CE884, it's rather obvious the limo was not traveling at the designated speed entries for z161/166 and z168/171 which is 2.24 and 3.74mph respectively. But, knowing they were trying to retard the limo progress by 5.1ft at the z166/171 entry point, then a simple calculation of 5.11ft over 5 frames would yield a speed of 12.72mph. Recollecting, I think I plotted this span at 13.44mph , so close enough to give you a more accurate speed in this location. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted March 2, 2023 Author Share Posted March 2, 2023 Now you can incorporate that retarded 5.11ft into this previously supplied graphic: And, by piecing together two different WC distance adjustments, you'll have your answer to the 10" height conundrum. It's similar to using the distance difference between the limo front end vs JFK in the limo as your measurement markers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted March 3, 2023 Author Share Posted March 3, 2023 Distance retarded 5.11ft Distance advanced 10.2ft (Station# 371.1-381.3) Total Span = 15.31ft 10" elevation change on a 3.13° slope = 10"/12" x 18.3 = 15.25ft distance traveled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted March 3, 2023 Author Share Posted March 3, 2023 On 3/2/2023 at 12:00 AM, Chris Davidson said: Looking previously at CE884, it's rather obvious the limo was not traveling at the designated speed entries for z161/166 and z168/171 which is 2.24 and 3.74mph respectively. But, knowing they were trying to retard the limo progress by 5.1ft at the z166/171 entry point, then a simple calculation of 5.11ft over 5 frames would yield a speed of 12.72mph. Recollecting, I think I plotted this span at 13.44mph , so close enough to give you a more accurate speed in this location. Take the simple breakdown from above(the path switch) and allow it to help correlate the designations below: Using 5.1ft/5frames = 12.697mph Frames Z168-186 = 21.6ft = 14.938mph @ 18.3 frames (1second) 14.938mph - 12.697mph = 2.24mph Z161-166 = 2.24mph That’s a match. 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