Len Colby

Amazing that you noticed Blair's post but missed mine which was immediately above it. I'm not into hairsplitting semantics; you participated in a less than friendly exchange with him on this page of this thread so saying, “I do not recall participating in an argument with Blair” was rather disingenuous, or were you really not smart enough to figure what I was referring to?

You still haven't told me which forum rule my signature violates. You are a Moderator, thus you can enforce the rules not make up new ones or give arbitrary orders. So until you or another Mod./Admin. provides a legitimate rationale for changing the quote, it's going to stay the way it is. And as I've told you due to your repeated violation of the rules I do not recognize your moral authority as a Mod. Pat agreed with you about Robert's sig. but Mr. Morrow reiterating his faux wager but it is bit different from me mocking him and his silly 'bet' in mine. This is analogous to Jack hypothetically having included his 'hung by their thumbs' comment in his sig. vs. my inclusion of it in mine.

Robert the elongation will be more pronounced the closer the item is to the camera. Do you think it's possible the "wrapper" got blown a couple in inches in 313? As for the fragment if it was spinning the 'strobe effect' would have limited elongation.

So Tom should I take your failure to reply to me (despite getting in to an argument with Blair) as a tacit admission on your part that my use of Morrow's quote including the word "penis" in my sig. does not violate any of the forum's rules and thus you had no basis for coercing me to change it?

As I previously noted on this forum, “Edmonds was an entry-level contract FBI translator for a few month over a decade ago. Claims that she has current expertise regarding the bureau’s translation operations are questionable, regarding other parts of their operations are risible and regarding covert CIA ops beyond absurd.” Would the FBI really have had intel on the operations she is talking about? The only other source here are “two Sunday Times journalists speaking on condition of anonymity” as cited by an obscure author writing for an obscure webzine. The author has a track record of unreliable 'reporting' regarding 9/11

http://911myths.com/index.php/Special:Search?search=Nafeez++Ahmed&fulltext=Search

Tom if you can tell me which forum rule I'm violating by leaving the "P word" (LOL) in my sig. I will remove it post haste.

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?

The more I think about it the more I think you could be right and that the fragment could be spinning and only reflecting at specific angles, this would produce sort of a stobelike effect and could explain why the items don't appear 'blurred' to you. I think you meant elongated but then notice that one of them actually is a bit elongated.

Marina? LHO?

Sorry, Mrs. and Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald.

Yeah, the gubmint did control those tornadoes...but i was able to avoid them because i heard their broadcasts on the fillings in my teeth.

LOL a member of this forum believes the CIA installed bugs in Marina's fillings so they could monitor LHO.

If you search this forum for limo stop you'll this has already been gone over, over and over and over again. No reason to go over it again.

I think differently. This is an issue that will not go away, because of the large number of witnesses to the stop.

More likely explanation is that a) some people will dredge up the same topics over and over again even when there are not any new developments that make them relevant again and new members who haven't bothered to do a forum search will bring up the same topics over and over again.

Then the question is begged, Len, what constitutes a new development? A new eye-witness is interviewed, as in the case of Toni Foster. How many readers know of this interview, and what she said? They may know who she is, but not what she told Debra Conway in the interview. A new development may be in a related area that has bearing on the lilmo stop. For instance, the suspicious peregrinations of the Z-film or copies of it as recorded by Horne may have a powerful influence on the credence one gives the limo-stop witnesses. Any new attack on the integrity of the extant film, should it come in the future, might cause the reader to doubt the accuracy of the film. Then there is the brain power of those thinkers who are able to synthesize seemingly disparate events into a coherent whole and shed new light on the case, and that synthesis might involve the Z-film and consequently the limo stop. I cannot count myself among such elite thinkers as i am only a casual reader, but they are out there. Then there is the very human tendency to want to sweep inconvenient anomalies under the rug and settle for shallow answers. If a person is convinced that an issue, while discussed in the past, has nevertheless not received the attention it deserves, then why not bring it up again and say why it needs to be reconsidered?

A new development, is well a development (a witness etc.) that is new (i.e. recent or not previously discussed)

So what's your 'theory" someone captured the fragment with a high-speed camera and for reasons unknown this was added to the Z-film?

Mr. Colby

Your guess is as good as mine. How those objects came to be in z313 is not the concern here.

The question really is, how can objects likely moving in excess of 90 ft/second (60 mph) appear in the Zapruder film as anything but a blurred streak, given that Zapruder's camera was not capable of capturing moving objects, at almost any speed, without obvious blurring?

Well the fragments could have been moving slower than you imagine, and since there is no detail in them there is no way to tell if they are blurred or not.

So what's your 'theory" someone captured the fragment with a high-speed camera and for reasons unknown this was added to the Z-film?

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"?

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.

The Government "Can Create And Steer Groups Of Tornadoes," But Jones Isn't Sure That Happened In Oklahoma Blog ››› 6 hours and 47 minutes ago ››› BEN DIMIERO & OLIVER WILLIS

579

[...]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/21/alex-jones-explains-how-government-weather-weap/194167

You obviously seem to think I'm the kind person who would obsessively comb over every pixel of every frame of the Z-film and then compared one to the other for minute differences, but “no,no, no it ain't me babe”. Have you bothered to check other versions of the frame? Has anyone else made this 'observation' or just you? Can you point to evidence skull fragments were found in a location consistent with your 'theory'? And you still have to answer my question, “But let's say you're right, what would it prove?” And let's not try and play photo expert, you obviously know little about the subject.

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.

If you search this forum for limo stop you'll this has already been gone over, over and over and over again. No reason to go over it again.

I think differently. This is an issue that will not go away, because of the large number of witnesses to the stop.

More likely explanation is that a) some people will dredge up the same topics over and over again even when there are not any new developments that make them relevant again and new members who haven't bothered to do a forum search will bring up the same topics over and over again.

Mr. Colby

Thank you for the instructions. Here is z313 with the debris circled for you.

To be honest I think they are not distinct enough to tell what they are it could just be discoloration of the grass. I doubt the skull fragments would have followed such a trajectory. But let's say you're right, what would it prove?

If you search this forum for limo stop you'll this has already been gone over, over and over and over again. No reason to go over it again.

The limo stop is vital to this thread because it joins the lack of debris from the back of the head as proof the Z-film is just so much foolishness, and arguing about what it allegedly shows or doesn't show is akin to chasing our tails.

There are dozens of things alterationists claim are proof or at least evidence the film was faked, why not drag in 'Mooreman in the street' or the turn on Elm Street etc. etc.? Turning every thread into a fruit salad is unproductive. The supposed stop has already been debated here a few times and is irrelevant to this thread.

And again, whatever expertise Sherry may have is irrelevant to the larger issue of the faked film.

Perhaps but it is quite relevant to topic under discusion.

The lack of debris, not a "supposedly" issue (see the ITEK study) is determinative: if the film does not show the reality of the actual wounding then whatever conclusions Sherry draws from what appears on the extant film is also irrelevant, however many endorsements her book gets.

LOL and any conclusions Itek made that contradict what you believe can be dismissed. Hillarious that you claim a study you vaguely remember having read about years ago “is determinative”. The question is not so much whether blood much blood spray etc. can be seen but whether or not the amount seen is than is less than should have been recorded.

That's simple logic, Len, not hand-waving, which I admit to being an expert at in the classroom.

Logical inferences based on ignorance are “hand-waving” and I agree you are an expert on that.

As for the top speed of blood splatter according to a document from an Australian university “A medium velocity force moves blood between five and 50 metres per second...A high velocity force moves blood greater than 50 metres per second.” So the bottom end for high velocity spatter is 164 ft./sec. It does not indicate what the top possible speed is but there is a 10x variance for medium velocity spatter (which is not to say I think 1640 fps [1120 mph] is possible).

http://www.clt.uwa.edu.au/__data/page/112508/fsb05.pdf

If all you can see is a blur in z313, I can recommend a good optometrist for you. As for myself, I can see individual pieces rising skyward in a train from the top of JFK's head.

Robert just so that we are on the same page can you post z313 with the pieces you think are unblurred circled?

Mr. Colby

Unfortunately, I do not have the expertise to do such things as circle parts of photos. .

The process is rather simple:

1. right click the image and choose the option “Copy Image” or “Save image as...”

2. Open Paint, it's in Windows 'Accesories' folder

3. If you copied the image click 'Paste. If you saved it open it.

4. Chose an oval (or other shape if you prefer) from the “Shapes” box in the menu bar, chose a color (yellow or blue are usually good) that will show up clearly

5. draw oval(s) around the object(s)

6. save the image

7. upload it here or better yet to a photohosting site. The latter is quite simple, some allow you to host images without having an account.

Sorry but I looked at the photo you posted and don't see the bits you're talking about.

If all you can see is a blur in z313, I can recommend a good optometrist for you. As for myself, I can see individual pieces rising skyward in a train from the top of JFK's head.

Robert just so that we are on the same page can you post z313 with the pieces you think are unblurred circled?

Sorry Len but I stand every word I have said. It is not circular thinking to take the limo-stop witnesses seriously, and there are plenty of them. Fetzer is not the source of my conviction of the limo-stop witnesses; it is their own words, which you categorically reject. I cannot do that, especially when the witnesses, like Bill Newman, were right in front of the limo, and included motorcycle officers Sherry hand-waves their testimony away in a disgusting bit of psychobabble. She knows nothing about the limo-stop except that it contradicts her view that the film is genuine. That's the sum total of it. She would otherwise have no argument against these witnesses. So her analysis trumps nothing, and is a travesty. You can't blame Toni Foster or assign motives to her for not speaking out sooner. What she said to Debra is part of the record. And as far as the provenance of the film, may I suggest you read Volume IV of Horne and tell me where his argument fails? And please be specific.

Now, go earn your Nobel Prize and explain to me how a great loss of bone and brain and blood in the back of the head with an avulsive wound, as described carefully by Dr. McClelland et al. would nevertheless show no ejecta out of the spot where the Dallas doctors found the avulsive wound (occiptioparietal)? Don't give that canard about the blood traveling 700 ft/sec. Come up with something that makes sense. Thanks in advance, daniel

Your post demonstrated a degree of mental confusion I never cited Sherry regarding the supposed limo stop nor did I say your conclusions regarding that point were examples of "circular logic". I was referring to the supposedly suspicious lack of debris in the Z-film. The supposed limo stop is not relevant to this thread and has already been discussed extensively elsewhere on this forum, ditto Horne's claims and conclusions, so been there done that, I'm done.

Sherry is an expert on the point I cited her on, her book has won numerous endorsements including from William LeBlanc, Certified Forensic Crime Scene Investigator and Cyril Wecht OTOH you seem to have no training in science or forensic. Nor have you offered us anything but handwaving.

As for Foster we have knowing for sure if she was there or how reliable he decades old recolections were even if she were,

LOL LIndorff the "photo analysist" fails to explain why the brothers were throwing similar bombs at the cops in Watertown.

Citation? I'll have to look it up, but it is something I read years ago. Hopefully other members of the forum have the citation. I rather thought this was old news and trivially accepted. I see Pat Speer has commented, so let's leave that issue behind. As to Toni Foster's eye-witness testimony, the reason she didn't come forward is that until Debra Conway interviewed her in 2000, no one else had. You can't blame her for that.

Come'on she must have realized she was a witness to history and people might be interested in her recollections That aside we still have the woman Posner interviewed and the problem with lack of eyewitness reliability especially after so much time. If you think what she said contradicts the Z-film it's reason to doubt the former not the latter

I do recommend you read that interview. Go to Lancer and you will easily find a PDF of the interview. Look up the summer 2000 KAC. Debra tells me that there is also a DVD with that interview on it. I highly recommend it to you, as you seem doubtful that she was there in Dealey plaza (even though she is a prominent feature in the Z-film). As for Sherry Fiester, Debra's sister, her analysis is based on the assumption of an authentic Z-film, a notion I find untenable. It is not science to base one's conclusion on an a film whose provenance is uncertain.

The film's "provenance is uncertain" only to alterationists. And you either did not read or misunderstood her posts here. They were not "based on the assumption of an authentic Z-film" but rather it disputed a claim by Costella which supposedly proved it was fake. You are engaging in circular thinking. Actually paddle-ball is a more fitting analogy.

The limo stop,

I see you seem to have unquestioningly accepted Fetzer's fishoil many witnesses only said it slowed which is consistent with the Z-film, other only said other parts of the motorcade. Most witness made no such observation.

and the lack of ejecta out of the back of Kennedy's head, which , despite your protestations, should be the most outstanding feature of the film, show the film for the fraud it is. Blood and brains do not travel 700 ft/sec. Period. A piece of bone might if struck properly, but watery blood and brains, no way. You can't match an avulsive wound in the occipitoparietal area with a great loss of brain in the rear of the head (including cerebellar tissue) with a total lack of ejecta. Match the McClelland diagram of Kennedy's wounding with Z 313 and I will give you a Nobel Prize in physics.

Sorry but unlike Costella and you Sherry is an expert her analysis trumps yours