David Josephs Posted March 3, 2023 Share Posted March 3, 2023 4 hours ago, Chris Davidson said: 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. Amazingly well done Chris... thanks for all the great work DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted March 3, 2023 Author Share Posted March 3, 2023 Thanks. Breaking it down somewhat further keeping the CE884 correlation in mind, the 2.24mph distance difference over those 18.3 frames(1sec) would only yield you 3.292ft which would leave another 1.8ft (5.1ft - 3.292) to resolve. Since 2.24mph = .18ft per frame and there was 1.8ft to resolve, a total of 10 frames would fit the bill. Hence the difference in entries between CE884 z161/171 of 10 frames, which would actually be in the same physical spot were it not for the angular/chess/BS directional change by the WC. Or, just take the 5.1ft/5frames (z161-166) = 1.02ft per frame and multiply by 10 frames = 10.2ft. z166 - 5.1ft/5frames = z161 z166+5.1ft/5frames = z171 Overall total of 28.3frames x .18ft per frame(2.24mph) = 5.1ft The same distance(10.2ft) the WC moved Robert West's shot determination circa station# 371.1(extant z207-splice) to the official WC location at station# 381.3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted March 5, 2023 Author Share Posted March 5, 2023 On 3/1/2023 at 1:55 PM, Chris Davidson said: 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. The appropriate song with the appropriate answer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szlqFlG4DL8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Davidson Posted March 5, 2023 Share Posted March 5, 2023 So , if hes shot at different points to where the WC states does that automatically point elsewhere for the shots ? Dal Tex ? Front shot (s) ? Plus if the film has been altered does that only refer to the Stemmons sign ? Frame removal ? Masking of blow out at the back of the head ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted March 6, 2023 Author Share Posted March 6, 2023 (edited) On 2/10/2023 at 11:49 PM, Chris Davidson said: Speaking of that lower sprockethole. This next gif should help you conceptualize the sleight of hand. What part of the StemmonsSign is in unison with the Bobbleheads? Give your eyes a few seconds for adjusting to see its true movement. Let's throw in the bobbleheads using a non-splice/splice frame. two non-splice frames. A different zfilm iteration of course. If you didn't realize, these gifs are comprised of extant z205,206,207. Edited March 6, 2023 by Chris Davidson change to non-splice/splice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted March 6, 2023 Author Share Posted March 6, 2023 On 3/5/2023 at 1:12 PM, Michael Davidson said: So , if hes shot at different points to where the WC states does that automatically point elsewhere for the shots ? Dal Tex ? Front shot (s) ? Plus if the film has been altered does that only refer to the Stemmons sign ? Frame removal ? Masking of blow out at the back of the head ? Michael, I'm not too concerned with shooter locations at this time. I will say, I believe Dr.Shaw has one of the positions correct in regards to Connally. Previously addressed. More handywork was applied to the film/s than just the StemmonsSign adjustment. imo More importantly, it's rather obvious that the shot/reaction circa extant z207 had to be excised because of the reactions seen on the extant film at approx z225. Not enough time for one shooter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted March 7, 2023 Author Share Posted March 7, 2023 (edited) On 2/24/2023 at 12:19 PM, Chris Davidson said: I re-recommend listening to the short clip of Dino from the above link. These are extant zframes 215/217, I left out z216 for accentuation purposes. Z216 has the same approx angle change as extant 217. When viewing this, use bobblehead mentality. iow, Individual pieces of a moving film. Does this motion look like familiar? Change the ANGLE and you have a solution to the bobbleheads. But, once you change it, it'll reveal the necessary camera height difference upon the pedestal to accommodate the alterations. Edited March 7, 2023 by Chris Davidson add bobblehead link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted March 7, 2023 Share Posted March 7, 2023 23 hours ago, Chris Davidson said: Let's throw in the bobbleheads using a non-splice/splice frame. two non-splice frames. A different zfilm iteration of course. If you didn't realize, these gifs are comprised of extant z205,206,207. Watching the above video clip for more than 5 seconds straight is afflicting me with a cross-eyed, slack jawed brain sensory disfunction similar to the effect of a strobe light. However, seriously I see it's value. That damn Stemmons Freeway sign. If only it wasn't there blocking more visual proof of shots coming in from different angles. Even without proof of film alteration, I have always felt it was still possible to see the physical reactions of JFK and JC being shot separately. Almost simultaneously, but still separately. Incredible work effort in providing the above film breakdowns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Schwartz Posted March 7, 2023 Share Posted March 7, 2023 Joe, Dino Brugioni saw the original Zapruder film. The zapruder film we are seeing now, has been altered, per Dino. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dino_Brugioni Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Cohen Posted March 7, 2023 Share Posted March 7, 2023 28 minutes ago, Chuck Schwartz said: Joe, Dino Brugioni saw the original Zapruder film. The zapruder film we are seeing now, has been altered, per Dino. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dino_Brugioni There's plenty of reasonable doubt that Brugioni is accurately recalling what happened regarding the Zapruder film briefing boards... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Schwartz Posted March 8, 2023 Share Posted March 8, 2023 Jonathan, I believe the work that Chris D. has been doing here is corraborating evidence that the zapruder film has been altered. Here is a more detailed analysis....https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-107-douglas-horne-on-the-zapruder-film-alteration-debate/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted March 9, 2023 Author Share Posted March 9, 2023 On 3/7/2023 at 8:28 AM, Chris Davidson said: Does this motion look like familiar? Change the ANGLE and you have a solution to the bobbleheads. But, once you change it, it'll reveal the necessary camera height difference upon the pedestal to accommodate the alterations. And/Or, This might make it a little easier on the eyes, while conveying the same message: Don't forget the angle change on the top sprocket hole, now that the bottom one is aligned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted March 9, 2023 Author Share Posted March 9, 2023 A refresher and it's on to some ballistic triangles: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Cummings Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 Chris can you give a summary of this thread of you're objective. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted March 11, 2023 Author Share Posted March 11, 2023 Paul, Deciphering the BS supplied by the WC (zfilm, ballistics, math etc). 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