Multiple Ejecta or Single Piece?

[Robert Prudhomme]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed on this forum or not but, I have a question regarding frame z313 of the Zapruder film.

In this frame can be seen ejecta rising vertically and slightly forwards from JFK's head. In this train of ejecta, I count four and possibly five whitish particles, all roughly the same size.

Has any researcher ever determined if these are individual pieces or the same piece, moving so quickly, it is captured several times in the same exposure?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Have I asked a particularly difficult question?

[Len Colby]

LOL if it is such an easy question why did you have ask? It doesn't seem to have been rhetorical. Perhaps no one bothered to reply (till now) because the question was such an absurd one. Whatever "they" are they are not the same thing recorded several times, that would not have been possible under the circumstances.

[John Dolva]

Maybe it's spinning or summat like that? If so the distance it travels must have been travelled for the time the film frame was exposed. One can then through triangulation with other films determine the direction the fragment was travelling and the rate at which it was spinning (and perhaps, prob not worth trying determine which fragment it is and therefore get an idea of it's weight and therefore the force imparted to it. Too many variables. However, it can be seen in other frames and other films. Muchmore gives a clue about direction. Anyway, with direction one can easily derive the true distance the object travelled which may say something about the trajectory of the bullet. I have doubts about that too. I actually think there are at least, possibly three fragments to be seen (not so easy in costellas mangled lollipop) but I think it was nix or hughes that caught it as well.

[Robert Prudhomme]

LOL if it is such an easy question why did you have ask? It doesn't seem to have been rhetorical. Perhaps no one bothered to reply (till now) because the question was such an absurd one. Whatever "they" are they are not the same thing recorded several times, that would not have been possible under the circumstances.

Mr. Colby

Why would it not have been possible for one object to have been captured several times in one frame?

[Pat Speer]

I've always assumed the fragment sailing upwards in 313 was the same object, and in recent years have come to assume it was the largest object ejected from the skull, the Harper fragment, which was found about a hundred feet forward of the limo at 313, on the grass across from the steps.

(I know, I know. Harper originally told the FBI the fragment was found behind the limousine's location. But he didn't know the limo's location during the shooting when he said this, and almost certainly assumed all the wreaths thrown on the grass across from the steps signified the limo's location. He subsequently marked maps to show where he found the fragment, and claimed he'd found the fragment across from the steps.)

Edited May 22, 2013 by Pat Speer

[Robert Prudhomme]

I've always assumed the fragment sailing upwards in 313 was the same object, and in recent years have come to assume it was the largest object ejected from the skull, the Harper fragment, which was found about a hundred feet forward of the limo at 313, on the grass across from the steps.

(I know, I know. Harper originally told the FBI the fragment was found behind the limousine's location. But he didn't know the limo's location during the shooting when he said this, and almost certainly assumed all the wreaths thrown on the grass across from the steps signified the limo's location. He subsequently marked maps to show where he found the fragment, and claimed he'd found the fragment across from the steps.)

Mr. Speer

I have heard the theory expressed a couple of different ways. One theory expounds, as you feel, that this was the Harper fragment. As the theory goes, it appears to be several fragments due to its turning. Each time one surface came around, it would reflect light to Zapruder's camera and be captured as an image; giving the illusion in z313 of several fragments following each other in a line. The other theory expounds that there are, indeed, several fragments in a train, one behind the other, all ascending skyward. Each theory is both believable and unbelievable.

If, as you say, the Harper fragment landed one hundred feet ahead of the limousine's position at z313, this tells us a very important fact; one corroborated looking at z314 and z315. The fragment, or fragments, visible ascending skyward forward of JFK's head in z313 had to be moving at a speed of at least 90 feet per second (60 mph), depending whether or not one believes the fragment to still be visible in z314. I have circled what appears to be the same fragment in z314.

http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee363/Traveller111/z314artifact_zps5a35747c.jpg

If this is, indeed, the same fragment in z314 as seen in z313, we can get a rough idea of its velocity. By comparing the distance between the highest fragment in z313 and the fragment in z314 to Mary Moorman (a very short woman just over five feet in stature), we can deduce that this fragment may have travelled five feet between the two frames. At a speed of 18.3 frames per second x 5 feet, we can assume the fragment to be moving 91.5 feet per second (62.38 mph). Would this, combined with the trajectory it was travelling, be sufficient to land the fragment 100 feet ahead of the limo, against a headwind?

Now, should we choose to believe the object in z314 is not the fragment seen in z313, the ceiling on the fragment's velocity is much higher.

Either way, there is something very important here to consider, one which questions the authenticity of z313 itself. If the fragment was travelling at a minimum of 90 ft/second (60 mph), it would make it the fastest thing in the entire film, excluding the assassin's bullets, of course. In fact, nothing in the film comes even close to it for velocity. The next fastest thing is likely the limousine itself, moving at the blinding velocity of 17.6 ft/second (12 mph), and yet we see many blurred objects in the Zapruder film, due to the fact Zapruder's camera was not designed to capture high speed action (or even slow speed action, it appears).

How on earth was Zapruder's camera able to capture, so clearly, a fragment moving in excess of 60 mph?

Edited May 22, 2013 by Robert Prudhomme

[Len Colby]

LOL if it is such an easy question why did you have ask? It doesn't seem to have been rhetorical. Perhaps no one bothered to reply (till now) because the question was such an absurd one. Whatever "they" are they are not the same thing recorded several times, that would not have been possible under the circumstances.

Mr. Colby

Why would it not have been possible for one object to have been captured several times in one frame?

This could only happen if the shutter opened and closed multiple times or if the object was illuminated with a blinking strobe, neither of which happened.

John suggested the object could be spinning but that would only work if one side was the same color as the background (grass green). And it would had to have rotated twice to have appeared thrice or 4x to have appeared five times, all within 1/40 thus it would have been spinning at 80 - 350 rps.

[Len Colby]

I've always assumed the fragment sailing upwards in 313 was the same object, and in recent years have come to assume it was the largest object ejected from the skull, the Harper fragment, which was found about a hundred feet forward of the limo at 313, on the grass across from the steps.

(I know, I know. Harper originally told the FBI the fragment was found behind the limousine's location. But he didn't know the limo's location during the shooting when he said this, and almost certainly assumed all the wreaths thrown on the grass across from the steps signified the limo's location. He subsequently marked maps to show where he found the fragment, and claimed he'd found the fragment across from the steps.)

Pat what is the basis for your belief "the Harper fragment, which was found about a hundred feet forward of the limo at 313, on the grass across from the steps"?

[Guest Tom Scully]

Len,

The gambler has revised the description of his wager, would you please revise your quote of that description, appearing near the bottom of each of your posts?

Moving further up from that quote, Jack White is deceased. Taking that fact into account, would you consider revising the line displayed in each of your posts, quoting Jack, while you're at it?

Edited May 22, 2013 by Tom Scully

[Pat Speer]

I've always assumed the fragment sailing upwards in 313 was the same object, and in recent years have come to assume it was the largest object ejected from the skull, the Harper fragment, which was found about a hundred feet forward of the limo at 313, on the grass across from the steps.

(I know, I know. Harper originally told the FBI the fragment was found behind the limousine's location. But he didn't know the limo's location during the shooting when he said this, and almost certainly assumed all the wreaths thrown on the grass across from the steps signified the limo's location. He subsequently marked maps to show where he found the fragment, and claimed he'd found the fragment across from the steps.)

Pat what is the basis for your belief "the Harper fragment, which was found about a hundred feet forward of the limo at 313, on the grass across from the steps"?

Somewhere online--I think on the McAdams site--there is a map marked by Harper for a researcher showing where he found the fragment. The reliability of this map is confirmed, moreover, by a nearly identical marking on another map of the plaza found in the Weisberg Archives. This map, as I recall, was marked by Harper in the 1960's, for researcher Howard Roffman.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I've always assumed the fragment sailing upwards in 313 was the same object, and in recent years have come to assume it was the largest object ejected from the skull, the Harper fragment, which was found about a hundred feet forward of the limo at 313, on the grass across from the steps.

(I know, I know. Harper originally told the FBI the fragment was found behind the limousine's location. But he didn't know the limo's location during the shooting when he said this, and almost certainly assumed all the wreaths thrown on the grass across from the steps signified the limo's location. He subsequently marked maps to show where he found the fragment, and claimed he'd found the fragment across from the steps.)

Pat what is the basis for your belief "the Harper fragment, which was found about a hundred feet forward of the limo at 313, on the grass across from the steps"?

Somewhere online--I think on the McAdams site--there is a map marked by Harper for a researcher showing where he found the fragment. The reliability of this map is confirmed, moreover, by a nearly identical marking on another map of the plaza found in the Weisberg Archives. This map, as I recall, was marked by Harper in the 1960's, for researcher Howard Roffman.

Mr. Speer

It would be interesting to know the velocity required to launch a skull fragment 100 feet ahead of the limo. The trajectory can, I believe, be determined from z313.

[Chris Davidson]

Hi Robert,

Z313= Station # 4+65.3

CE 875 states a shot at Station # approx 4+95.

Across the steps would be Station # 5+25.

Distance from Z313 to steps is approx 60ft.

Distance from CE875 to steps = 30ft.

A shot near Altgens could be a more likely starting point for the Harper fragment.

chris

[Craig Lamson]

Hi Robert,

Z313= Station # 4+65.3

CE 875 states a shot at Station # approx 4+95.

Across the steps would be Station # 5+25.

Distance from Z313 to steps is approx 60ft.

Distance from CE875 to steps = 30ft.

A shot near Altgens could be a more likely starting point for the Harper fragment.

chris

One small problem Chris, according to Altgens testimony, the shot had to happen up near 313 for him to see the damage he says he saw to JFK....

Edited May 23, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[Robert Prudhomme]

Mr. Lamson

Please post for us the part of Mr. Altgens' testimony to the WC in which he describes JFK's wounds. I believe Mr. Altgens is not particularly clear in his description and it can be interpreted several ways.