Sorry if I don't find his methods or conclusions persuasive.
Actually either you don’t understand his methods. Or you are just trying to dismiss his work because you came to different conclusions than he did. I suspect that both are probably the case here.
I don't have any particular conclusion about Wiegman. The particular section in front of the TSBD starts after the first shot. Whether it starts before the second shot depends on when you think the second shot occurred. Wiegman doesn't say.
But you are right about the last part. I don't understand his methods. That's because he bases everything on his 3D computer model that he does not disclose. He just gives us distances and angles from his model. And his 3D model is made from photographs so it must be accurate with no margin of error. Right. I wrote and mailed a letter to Myers in July 2002 (sent it to his publisher as I didn't have his email address) asking about the problems I was having with the trajectory from the SN from his model. I was hoping he would tell me what angles and distances (relating to the men in the car) he was using. He emailed back (then using dalekmyers@earthlink.net) saying he was limited in what he could say:
"I am currently working on several areas related to the computer
project, "Secrets of a Homicide," and therefore am limited in what
I can discuss in detail at this time."
and just said he noted problems with my drawings but did not offer to provide the actual distances and angles he was using:
"I do note a number of problems in your drawings, most of which,
revolve around projecting 2D lines of sight onto images that represent
3D environments. "
So, no, we don't know how Myers did his analysis because he just gives us the numbers that he thinks we should just accept because his model is perfect (at least to 3 significant figures and negligible margin of error).
In the section of the pdf version that you posted, Myers says that frame 6 is the first clear frame. I infer from that that there are the expected number of frames between W001 and W015. If you look at the graphic in that pdf you will notice that Myers does not show all the frames of any of the films. He apparently skips frames, as he sees fit, to show only what he intended to show (how the films synchronize with each other).
You would think he would provide a source for the Wiegman film so that we can see the frames he is referring to. They are not part of any version I have seen.
The first cannot be reconciled with Altgens photo at z255. The second is better but it means that the Cabell car made the entire turn from not being visible in the intersection at z255 (Altgens) - to the position it is seen in W015 - already pointing down Elm St. in 14 zframes or .76 seconds.
Sorry, but you are wrong. Actually, all the cars had to do was move a little over 1-car-length each (they were traveling at about 10-mph at that time, according to the Mark Tyler animation). In the image below I have drawn red dots and lines showing how, when they move only about one car-length each, the line of sight from the passenger compartment of Camera Car 1 lines up with the area of the left rear tire of the Cabell car and lines up with the highway sign pole on the island between Elm Street Extension and Elm Street (just as they do in the W015 frame).
Also, in this image we can see the yellow highlight of Altgen’s camera’s field of view. The Cabell car has not yet reached it, but slightly more than one car-length further and it is fully inside Altgen’s camera’s field of view. My red marks are only to give you a rough idea of things and are not intended to be exact. But I have no doubt that the cars moving at ~10-mph would have traveled that far.
Good point. This shows the position of Altgens at z255 when Altgens actually took the photo standing in the left lane a few feet from the curb:
The position of the Cabell car is some distance from the right side of Altgens' field of view and appears to be about a car-length, not 2 zframes, from the position it is in here:
