Robert Prudhomme

What is this reference to "chops" that so many LN's seem to bring up so often? Is this an American form of slang? It is such an odd term and I don't recall hearing it prior to becoming involved with JFK forums.

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.

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) Mr. Colby If we used your logic as our guide, we would have to shut this forum down entirely. I am sure you would be delighted.

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. Mr. Colby I do not think that is the case here. The fragments disappear in one frame (or two, if one sees that object in z314 as a fragment). In contrast to this, Jean Hill first appears at z288 and disappears from view at z310; a total of twenty-two frames. Zapruder was tracking the limo at its reported speed of 12 mph (17.6 ft/second). In order to disappear from view in one or two frames, those particles would have to be, as my son is fond of saying, "booking it". The fragments are definitely not blurred and there are things in z313 that are most definitely blurred, while others that should be are not. Look again at z313. I have circled an object lying on the grass that is so blurred, it is nothing but a white streak, while two frames later, in z315, it goes back to being a small white dot. Ostensibly, the blurring is a result of Zapruder accidentally moving his camera a bit too far while tracking. However, it is doubtful that his camera movement could have equated to a motion in that article that even approached the velocity of those ascending fragments. http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee363/Traveller111/z313secondartifact_zps7a4f15cb.jpg If that object in the grass was captured as just a white blur, why were the fragments, moving much quicker, not captured as a similar white streak?

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?

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?

Mr. Colby One does not have to be a photographic expert to be able to see the obvious. Mr. Zapruder's camera was, due to its relatively slow shutter speed, unable to capture high speed objects other than as a blur. Evidence of this is in the film itself. Anything that was not moving at the same speed as the limousine he was tracking has a distinct blur to it. Also, in many instances, Mr. Zapruder would jiggle or waver with the camera. This had the marked effect of exaggerating his tracking speed and blurring objects even further. An example of this can be seen in z313 itself. http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee363/Traveller111/z313secondartifact_zps7a4f15cb.jpg Just above the windshield of the limo, I have circled a white object. Though never truly identified, it is believed this object is a wrapper from a roll of film dropped by either James Altgens or someone near him, further down the street. It is clearly quite blurred although, strangely, other background items are not blurred anywhere near as much. It is blurred in z314 but, by z315, it is captured in a much less effected size. http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee363/Traveller111/z315secondartifact_zps4780ecc1.jpg The contradiction is quite obvious. An article lying in the grass cannot be moving faster than parts of JFK's head ejected from the fatal wound. Evidence of this is the fact the ejecta is not visible in the next frame, z314, while the article lying in the grass is visible not only in z314 but, right up to z334 where it disappears behind a motorcycle cop.

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 May I invite you to exercise your discretion and ignore this topic, if you find its contents so bothersome?

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

I think differently. This is an issue that will not go away, because of the large number of witnesses to the stop. These witnesses were positioned near the limo and also at a distance. The Z-film most certainly does not show that the limo almost came to a stop, contra Mr. Harris. Slowed, yes, Almost came to a stop, no. Any witnesses conveying an "almost stop" are contradicting the Z-film. So the number is quite large; and not all of them are recorded in Palamara's article. It is the combined corroboration of these witnesses which makes their statements impossible to ignore, unless one has a prior conviction that the Z-film accurately records the assassination. The problems with Z-film authenticity have multiplied since the publication of Horne, and these problems provide in their own way corroboration to the limo stop witnesses. In another forum, and of course here, Mr. Harris argues that the Bronson film never was in the hands of the government, and it shows no limo stop. Viewing the film, I noticed that it ends soon after the head shot. So Bronson is of no use one way or the other. The limo stop and McClelland's drawing (the drawing which McClelland approved) for Josiah Thompson's book are like twins -- utterly derided because they contradict the supposed "best evidence." Lifton proved long ago the "best evidence" game doesn't work in this case. Failing to heed this warning, we simply go round and round chasing our tails getting nowhere. Things don't converge, as Thompson rightly noted, but failed to discern why. It's called fraud in the evidence, and we have fallen for a facade hook, line and sinker. Mr. Gallup And do not forget the swerve, my friend. Mr. Greer specifically mentioned a swerve.

Have I asked a particularly difficult question?

Mr. Colby You are quite the comedian, sir. A discoloration of the grass? That only appears in one frame? Isn't it quaint how those four "discolorations" all line themselves up in a straight row? To any normal person, those four pieces are matter being blown upward by the force that blew all the other matter from JFK's skull. The problem with them is that Zapruder's camera was incapable of capturing high speed action. For example, if the limo was travelling at 12 mph, it would be moving at 17.6 feet per second. Zapruder was tracking the limo with his camera. This did two things; it showed the limo with sharp clarity but gave a distinct blurring to the bystanders. If tracking a limo at 17.6 feet per second gave this much blurring and the pieces above JFK's head were moving at, as you pointed out, 150-700 feet per second, wouldn't those four pieces be, at best, just a blurred line?

If you count the original statements from 1963 and 1964, you will find that a large majority of witnesses who mentioned this, said the limo slowed or almost came to a stop, which is exactly what it did. Greer lifted his foot from the gas for exactly the reason that Dr. Luis Alvarez said he did. He was startled by a loud noise at frame 285. Of course that was not a siren. That was a gunshot which also startled every other nonvictim who was in the limo. And the swerve? Mr. Greer definitely mentioned swerving.

Mr. Harris On the 22nd November, 1963, SA William Greer was assigned to drive the presidential limousine in the motorcade through Dallas. Several witnesses said that Greer stopped the car after the first shot was fired. This included Jean Hill, who was the closest witness to the car when Kennedy was shot: According to Hill "the motorcade came to almost a halt at the time the shots rang out". James Chaney (one of the four Presidential motorcyclists) - stated that the limousine "after the shooting, from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped." Mary Woodward, another witness to the assassination and a journalist with the Dallas Morning News wrote: "Instead of speeding up the car, the car came to a halt... after the first shot". The author William Manchester claims that William Greer (limo driver) told Jackie Kennedy at Parkland Hospital: "Oh, Mrs. Kennedy, oh my God, oh my God. I didn't mean to do it, I didn't hear, I should have swerved the car, I couldn't help it. Oh, Mrs. Kennedy, as soon as I saw it I swerved. If only I'd seen it in time!" I wonder just what it was Mr. Greer meant when he said, "....as soon as I saw it I swerved." Any idea why this swerve is not seen in the Zapruder film?

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: right click the image and choose the option “Copy Image” or “Save image as...” Open Paint, it's in Windows 'Accesories' folder If you copied the image click 'Paste. If you saved it open it. 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 draw oval(s) around the object(s) save the image 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. Mr. Colby Thank you for the instructions. Here is z313 with the debris circled for you.

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. Believe me when I tell you it is all I can do to post a photo to a website. However, I will try to describe to you the unblurred pieces as best I can. They are rather obvious, so it should not be that difficult. If, looking at z313, you look just above Jackie's head, it is possible to see what appear to be four small white pieces, presumably of skull bone, that are ascending from JFK's head in an almost straight line. I believe I read some research material that claimed this is actually a single piece of skull bone captured several times in the one exposure but, I cannot recall where it was I read that.

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?

So do I take it you disagree with Daniel that we can't see ejecta? Due to the low resolution and frame rate it was possible but far from certain ejecta would be recorded. It would be instructive to know the shutter speed as well. Mr. Colby I think you misunderstood me here. If you look at z313, there appears to be objects travelling almost vertically from the top of JFK's head which some researchers claim to be pieces of skull bone. Some researchers even feel that the numerous pieces are one single piece of bone. Until you posted that reply to Mr. Gallup, it had not occurred to me that the ejecta was, by your calculation, possibly moving at a speed approaching 700 feet per second. Although the question is how could this camera, taking exposures at a rate of 18.3 frames per second, have possibly captured this piece of bone as several exposures in one frame, the real question is how did this camera capture the individual pieces of bone at all? This camera obviously did not have a fast shutter speed, judging by the blurring of bystanders as opposed to the sharpness of the limo. The ejecta, at your calculated speed of 700 feet per second, should, at the very most, have only left a blur on z313. 1) frame rate is not the same as shutter speed the latter was 1/40 second 2) I did not calculate 700 ft/sec it was a rough guesstimate from a layperson, I used it illustrate roughly how fat the debris could have gone between frames. Apparently Sherry did a study that was far more in depth than her posts here, the former might have a calculation as to the velocity 3) to me all we can see is a blur Mr. Colby I accept that the velocity of ejecta at 700 feet per second was a guesstimate. That being said, though, outside of the bullets, would you not agree that the ejecta from the head wound in z313 was moving an incredible amount faster than anything else in the entire film? 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.

So do I take it you disagree with Daniel that we can't see ejecta? Due to the low resolution and frame rate it was possible but far from certain ejecta would be recorded. It would be instructive to know the shutter speed as well. Mr. Colby I think you misunderstood me here. If you look at z313, there appears to be objects travelling almost vertically from the top of JFK's head which some researchers claim to be pieces of skull bone. Some researchers even feel that the numerous pieces are one single piece of bone. Until you posted that reply to Mr. Gallup, it had not occurred to me that the ejecta was, by your calculation, possibly moving at a speed approaching 700 feet per second. Although the question is how could this camera, taking exposures at a rate of 18.3 frames per second, have possibly captured this piece of bone as several exposures in one frame, the real question is how did this camera capture the individual pieces of bone at all? This camera obviously did not have a fast shutter speed, judging by the blurring of bystanders as opposed to the sharpness of the limo. The ejecta, at your calculated speed of 700 feet per second, should, at the very most, have only left a blur on z313.

I was going to say that you were looking at the arm of Jackie's pink suit but, I see you are pointing out something a bit higher. I really can't say for sure if that is red or not. I don't suppose you consider this evidence of a rear exit wound, do you?

I don't see what you are pointing out, Craig. Could you be more specific?

Len Colby said: "Please spell out any technical qualifications you have to have reached such a conclusion; Debra Conway's sister is a CT regarding the assassination and forensic expert specialising in blood splatter, she reached the same conclusion regarding a similar claim made by Costella. You do realize the Z-film was low resolution and only 18.3 FPS and that even the MC fired bullets at over 2000 ft/sec? Even if the debris ejected at 700 FPS (1/3 the speed of an MC bullet) it would have travelled over 30 ft between frames." If what you say is true, don't you find it rather amazing that frame z313 of the Zapruder film not only seemed to capture ejected material going upwards from JFK's brain in mid-flight, it also seems to have captured the same piece of skull bone in several locations above JFK's head as it shot upwards?

Mr. Varnell I see there are quite a number of points we agree on. It is always a bit awkward when I meet a fellow CT for the first time. There is always that uncomfortable period when two CT's are uncertain as to just which theories the other CT subscribes to. Ah, to have a time machine to take us back and witness the whole thing for ourselves. Although, I must say, I would probably ruin the opportunity by closing my eyes at the moment of the head shot.

Mr. Varnell We have to keep in mind that two of the witnesses, Linda Willis and Clint Hill, were behind JFK at the time he was supposed to be grabbing his throat. You are correct, though, in quoting Nellie Connally as saying JFK had his hands at his throat. I had never read her testimony closely enough to see that Arlen Specter had clarified her words for her. That being said, Mr. Jesus's video does tend to show us that JFK had one hand at his mouth and the left hand pulling at his tie. Mr. Jesus does make an extremely good case for a frontal shot through the windshield and he also puts forth a very good explanation for Connally's reaction. I am a little puzzled as to just why someone would want to paralyze JFK with a dart, as opposed to killing him outright, but, as you say, to say he was or was not hit by conventional weaponry would be making an assumption. Yes, JFK was not hit in the spine but, rather, 1.5-2" to the right of the spinal midline. However, there is a particularly large accumulation of nerves in the cervical area that leave the cervical spine to go to the arm. "There was a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process and an airpocket overlaying the right T1 and C7 transverse processes." As you say, no assumptions can be made, and I refuse to assume any of the autopsy evidence is genuine. There is a great deal of evidence pointing to JFK being struck at the level of the T3 vertebra.

Mr. Varnell With all due respect, JFK was never actually seen grabbing his throat. His fists were balled up and raised to the level of his throat but, he did not actually grab at his throat. Also, Nellie Connally stated that there was no blood, at this point in time, to be seen on JFK. Considering that there are seven jugular veins and two carotid arteries close together in this region of the neck, the lack of blood itself should cause us to doubt if the wound in the throat was present immediately following the first shot. It goes without saying, of curse, that blood from a throat wound would have shown up very clearly on JFK's white shirt. If we believe JFK was struck at the level of T3, or if we believe he was struck at the level of C7, we should be investigating what nerves leave the spinal column at these points and if hitting one of them can cause a spasmodic effect that would make a man raise his arms in this fashion.