Alan Healy Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Charles - Marcel is from Belgium. I think his English is first rate, especially considering it is not his first language. I also see nothing wrong with creating a word to communicate an idea personally.- lee All language is dynamic, open to metamorphoses prompted by a multiplicity of forces. That being stated, there is EVERYTHING wrong with "creating a word to communicate an idea personally." (emphasis added) Language is not owned by any individual. There exist words to describe the phenomenon Marcel is referencing. His abuse of language is unacceptable to all who understand the value of language to intelligent discourse. "Hovering" suffices. "Helicoptering" is an abomination. Charles I dissagree with you Charles because I thought "helicoptering" fit the motion of the object very well, it is certainly not hovering but violently shaking, stretching too while at the same time, staying in one place. Maybe tumbling? Just a thought, I'm not looking for "aggro". Once again, a great presentation Marcel, it was pleasure to study those pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 Charles - Marcel is from Belgium. I think his English is first rate, especially considering it is not his first language. I also see nothing wrong with creating a word to communicate an idea personally.- lee All language is dynamic, open to metamorphoses prompted by a multiplicity of forces. That being stated, there is EVERYTHING wrong with "creating a word to communicate an idea personally." (emphasis added) Language is not owned by any individual. There exist words to describe the phenomenon Marcel is referencing. His abuse of language is unacceptable to all who understand the value of language to intelligent discourse. "Hovering" suffices. "Helicoptering" is an abomination. Charles Charles...All languages allow IDIOMATIC expressions in friendly exchanges where the meaning is clear. I consider HELICOPERING an idiom describing a spinning/hovering activity. In a scientific paper, no. In friendly discussion, OK in my opinion. As I recall, you are a sports fan...and where would sportscasters be without making up expressive idioms? The current favorite of football announcers when a player is running for a touchdown is HE'S TAKING IT TO THE HOUSE. Actually he is not going to any abode, but carrying the ball across the goal line. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 (edited) Charles - Marcel is from Belgium. I think his English is first rate, especially considering it is not his first language. I also see nothing wrong with creating a word to communicate an idea personally. Lee, Thank you! The verb "Helicoptering" isn't my invention. The whole article was written by Frank Caramelli, I used the same verb as Frank! That's all. ***************** Marcel : How nice to see you,....been quite awhile... The article presented on your site, was extremely well done, and the result of that has been almost a complete meeting of the minds, that in itself says a lot.. As for the word Helicoptering, there are it seems new words being included in the Websters Dictionary, each and every year as time progresses, so who knows ?? and as we all do and have at times slain the English language, who is to tell whom, what words to and not to speak.....that shall be the day.....imo..... I do believe some take themselves too seriously.....Good Lord, if so, I do not know of one member here that has not slain such in the past....let alone along with many "spullin mistooks"... As for a new possible theory re the assn research, well you should at times read some that have been presented here in the past...... Thanks again, always a pleasure.....carry on.... Best B...... Edited November 21, 2007 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 Helix: http://www.imb-jena.de/ImgLibDoc/prot_struc/helix_comp.gif Latin petere to go to, seek, Greek petesthai to fly, piptein to fall, pteron wing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Drago Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 (edited) Charles - Marcel is from Belgium. I think his English is first rate, especially considering it is not his first language. I also see nothing wrong with creating a word to communicate an idea personally.- lee All language is dynamic, open to metamorphoses prompted by a multiplicity of forces. That being stated, there is EVERYTHING wrong with "creating a word to communicate an idea personally." (emphasis added) Language is not owned by any individual. There exist words to describe the phenomenon Marcel is referencing. His abuse of language is unacceptable to all who understand the value of language to intelligent discourse. "Hovering" suffices. "Helicoptering" is an abomination. Charles Charles...All languages allow IDIOMATIC expressions in friendly exchanges where the meaning is clear. I consider HELICOPERING an idiom describing a spinning/hovering activity. In a scientific paper, no. In friendly discussion, OK in my opinion. As I recall, you are a sports fan...and where would sportscasters be without making up expressive idioms? The current favorite of football announcers when a player is running for a touchdown is HE'S TAKING IT TO THE HOUSE. Actually he is not going to any abode, but carrying the ball across the goal line. Jack Jack, et al, More than just a quick response surely would amount to a hijacking of this thread, so I'll be uncharacteristically brief. Every word counts. The successful communication of complex ideas depends upon the precise, sophisticated use of language. All language is subject to change when change is mandated by the evolution of culture. But to coin a word for no reason other than laziness or ignorance is to assault language. I have no problem with "taking it to the house." I would have a major problem with calling the person who does so a "house takerer." Bernice: If we don't take language seriously, we put at risk the very foundation of civilization. Am I less than masterful in my language skills? Of course I am! But for better or worse, I work at those skills every day. And so should all of you. Charles Edited November 21, 2007 by Charles Drago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Caramelli Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Hi to All!Recently Frank Caramelli Jr. sent me an article introducing his theory regarding the possible presence of the Harper fragment within the Zapruder film. Frank is persuaded than the thing usually named the "White Blob" , the "White Spot" or also the "Spot in the grass" could be the Harper fragment. Hereunder the link toward Frank Caramelli’s article, "The Flying Skull Fragment." Page 1 : http://copweb.be/Frank%20Caramelli%20Jr/Fl...%20Fragment.htm Page 2 : http://www.copweb.be/Frank%20Caramelli%20J...%20Animated.htm The most intriguing is... ...the animation of the Harper fragment which literally seems to "helicoptering" above the Limo (Page 2). Best regards,... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Caramelli Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Marcel...his theory is nuts. The Bothun photo shows that the white blob in the grass is the backing from one of Mary Moorman's Polaroids. I have posted the image numerous times. Jack Agreed - Moorman took a series of polaroid shots - Jack did a good job demonstrating that the object in the grass was one of the backings from the polaroid film following exposure. Plus a skull fragment of the size of the Harper would have been discovered by all of the folks seen examining the scene after the fact in aftermath photos. Also it is nowhere near where Harper claims to have discovered the fragment the following day. Finally it is nowhere near where Harper showed Don Roberdeau that the fragment was recovered. The 'nutty' part of any theory is one that suggests a fragment of this size could have come from the rear of the head and ended up where Harper indicated he found it - regardless of where the shot originated. Charles - Marcel is from Belgium. I think his English is first rate, especially considering it is not his first language. I also see nothing wrong with creating a word to communicate an idea personally. - lee Hello Lee; Frank Caramelli here. Just got accepted to the forum after a few weeks(!) of website problems. I have yet to post on the forum so I thought I'd try an individual response first. I picked you because you are one of the responders that addressed specifically my finding. Here goes. Wow, if I had a nickle for every Bothun or Cancellieri I've been emailed in the last few months - I'd have a least 45 cents by now. Yes of course I have seen these photographs, and have some opinions. The object in Bothun appears a bit further east than the divit in the lawn, plus we can't forget that a parade just went by and winds were gusting to almost 20 mph, I believe. A piece of paper wouldn't be out of the ordinary. But more importantly, the object in Bothun and Cancellieri looks as much like a skull fragment as a piece of paper. If you refer to Zapruder, and assume the white spot is a piece of paper or Moormans poloroid backing - doesn't that make it a bit too large? Six or eight feet from the curb, more than forty feet from Zapruder (correct me if I'm wrong) that "polaroid backing" would seem to be about ten inches across. But move it closer, as in flying across the limo, and it 's size comes down to, well, about the size of Harper's fragment. You also made the observation that you didn't think it lined up too well with the trunk lid. It's a good commment but I wholeheartedly disagree. If you can "page through" the motion of frames 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, the spot/fragment and it's reflection lines up perfectly. That is one thing that stuck out for me when I first noticed this. The angle of the reflection is also very congruent with the reflection of the first ladies arm a second or so later; I believe the frame I cited was 371. The motion of the fragment in the reflection is, in my opinion, extremley accurate. JFK Murder Solved.com has a good version of Zapruder that you can page through frame by frame. Another thought on Moormans polaroid backing. Hmmm... littering when the POTUS is about to drive down the street. Would you? That "backing" in frame 312 looks to be about twenty feet to Mary's left. the wind was blowing to her right. One thought on the wind - it seems to have settled at the time of the shooting. The flags on the limo seem to be waving because of the motion of the car and maybe just a little added wind. Hard to tell. As far as your comment that somebody would have noticed the fragment lying there; well Harper remained in the plaza all night. I think that is one very enduring mystery, one that will probably never be figured out. And that dovetails with how far Harper was found from the impact at 313. Dealey was littered with skull fragments. Altgens said some landed at this feet. Clint Hill said some slid off the limo and onto the street. Dallas PD made statements that some were thrown in the trash. Then there's the photo of the mystery man digging in the lawn (watched by a Dallas PD officer) shortly after the assassination - no telling what this guy pocketed. So, thank you Lee for the constructive comments. I continue to research this aspect of the assassination; and hopefully I will soon be adding some new eyewitness quotes and corroboration from other films. One last thing. I'm not trying to establish a "theory". Theories are more complex and more involving of conjecture than what I'm getting at - which is an observation. I want people to look at the frames of the film and tell me what they see. I see something reflected in the trunk lid. As I said several times in my paper - if it's reflected in the trunk lid it can't be on the lawn. Can a mirror on a wall reflect the wall it's hanging on? Thanks for your time Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Caramelli Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Hi to All!Recently Frank Caramelli Jr. sent me an article introducing his theory regarding the possible presence of the Harper fragment within the Zapruder film. Frank is persuaded than the thing usually named the "White Blob" , the "White Spot" or also the "Spot in the grass" could be the Harper fragment. I don't understand the alterationists regarding the Z-Film. That white object could have been colored out of the film. They could have painted it green. Fortunately, they didn't. I am aware that a lot of the gore has been removed and contained in one or two frames. The significance of this white oval object, which is definitely flying through the air and is not bouncing around on the grass: Is it indicative of a shot from behind or 2 shots, one from the right front and one from behind, hitting his head simultaneously, which flew the Harper Fragment forward? Kathy Hello Kathy and thanks for your comments; I agree with your comment on the alterationists. I do think alteration is a possibility and have my own findings on this topic. I truly do not entertain the idea that several hundred frames were repainted. Or that a film of the assassination was matted to an existing (or gathered after the fact) shot of Dealey. And I am aware that technology existed back in those days to do that type of thing. Actually, matting something in would be very believable. At play speed. If one starts examining the film (or any film) frame by frame; the frame where the matting starts is very obvious. As is the difference of luminence of the two (or three) shots matted in - also obvious. And yes, I'm talking about today, 2007. Yes, it is a piece of cake to find where a matte is started in say, a movie made this year. Let alone a matte and dub that was done in say 1964. Again, it would be believable when watching the film, but take it out of the projector and lay it on a light table, someone with barely any experience in photography could find the changes. So if the Z film was reformatted, it would be done in a limited way; as I said, I have my own alteration ideas, I haven't ruled it out. I'm not sure a lot of gore has been removed, with the newer versions (of Zapruder) such as Costella's combined edit found on Assassination Science.com, the spray of blood in 313, 314, 315 is a lot more apparent than it used to be. I would welcome your ideas on this topic; as I said in my article; some hanky panky at frame 313 is a definite possibility. Thank you for agreeing with me, at least in a limited way, that the white spot is not "bouncing around on the grass". I certainly don't think it is. And my television friends, when shown the trunk lid reflection, take about one second flat to go "Yeah, you're right." And if I may brag for a second, my television friends have very, very keen eyes for this type of thing. At this point it is a little odd and somewhat amusing that researches say - "No way!" and E mail me a copy of Bothun, but my photography and video friends say "Yeah I see what you mean." And that would go for Marcel Dehaesleer, at least initially. He did a lot of really great work for me in working up the Z frames for this project. I think he believes (ed) in my finding to a certain extent; and this is a guy who's site deals a lot with technical photography and has himself carried out some interesting experiments. I wish I could get the comments of someone like Groden, or even Bugliosi, but my emails to contact these guys don't get responded to. You asked - "Is it indicative of a shot from behind, in front or...?" Actually I think the direction of shots is very difficult in Zapruder. I would agree with the years old scenario of 313 - from behind, 314 - nothing, 315 - from the knoll. JFK's body motions support that; but as I pointed out in my article, JFK is seemingly jerked downward and to his right, at around 320. I've done some further research and was surprised to find a number of eyewitness saying they thought shots came from the north portico or even the area between the north portico and the TSBD. But the flying fragment was flung toward the front of the car - way out there in 313. As a matter of fact in the months putting this thing together, the best question I think I was asked was - "How come it's so far out in front of the limosine?" (at 313) It's a good question and my answer comes down to "eighteen frames a second." The hit at 313 actually comes between 312 and 313; a lot of agreement there from all quarters. Again thanks for your time and input; Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Marcel...his theory is nuts. The Bothun photo shows that the white blob in the grass is the backing from one of Mary Moorman's Polaroids. I have posted the image numerous times. Jack Agreed - Moorman took a series of polaroid shots - Jack did a good job demonstrating that the object in the grass was one of the backings from the polaroid film following exposure. Plus a skull fragment of the size of the Harper would have been discovered by all of the folks seen examining the scene after the fact in aftermath photos. Also it is nowhere near where Harper claims to have discovered the fragment the following day. Finally it is nowhere near where Harper showed Don Roberdeau that the fragment was recovered. The 'nutty' part of any theory is one that suggests a fragment of this size could have come from the rear of the head and ended up where Harper indicated he found it - regardless of where the shot originated. Charles - Marcel is from Belgium. I think his English is first rate, especially considering it is not his first language. I also see nothing wrong with creating a word to communicate an idea personally. - lee Hello Lee; Frank Caramelli here. Just got accepted to the forum after a few weeks(!) of website problems. I have yet to post on the forum so I thought I'd try an individual response first. I picked you because you are one of the responders that addressed specifically my finding. Here goes. Wow, if I had a nickle for every Bothun or Cancellieri I've been emailed in the last few months - I'd have a least 45 cents by now. Yes of course I have seen these photographs, and have some opinions. The object in Bothun appears a bit further east than the divit in the lawn, plus we can't forget that a parade just went by and winds were gusting to almost 20 mph, I believe. A piece of paper wouldn't be out of the ordinary. But more importantly, the object in Bothun and Cancellieri looks as much like a skull fragment as a piece of paper. If you refer to Zapruder, and assume the white spot is a piece of paper or Moormans poloroid backing - doesn't that make it a bit too large? Six or eight feet from the curb, more than forty feet from Zapruder (correct me if I'm wrong) that "polaroid backing" would seem to be about ten inches across. But move it closer, as in flying across the limo, and it 's size comes down to, well, about the size of Harper's fragment. You also made the observation that you didn't think it lined up too well with the trunk lid. It's a good commment but I wholeheartedly disagree. If you can "page through" the motion of frames 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, the spot/fragment and it's reflection lines up perfectly. That is one thing that stuck out for me when I first noticed this. The angle of the reflection is also very congruent with the reflection of the first ladies arm a second or so later; I believe the frame I cited was 371. The motion of the fragment in the reflection is, in my opinion, extremley accurate. JFK Murder Solved.com has a good version of Zapruder that you can page through frame by frame. Another thought on Moormans polaroid backing. Hmmm... littering when the POTUS is about to drive down the street. Would you? That "backing" in frame 312 looks to be about twenty feet to Mary's left. the wind was blowing to her right. One thought on the wind - it seems to have settled at the time of the shooting. The flags on the limo seem to be waving because of the motion of the car and maybe just a little added wind. Hard to tell. As far as your comment that somebody would have noticed the fragment lying there; well Harper remained in the plaza all night. I think that is one very enduring mystery, one that will probably never be figured out. And that dovetails with how far Harper was found from the impact at 313. Dealey was littered with skull fragments. Altgens said some landed at this feet. Clint Hill said some slid off the limo and onto the street. Dallas PD made statements that some were thrown in the trash. Then there's the photo of the mystery man digging in the lawn (watched by a Dallas PD officer) shortly after the assassination - no telling what this guy pocketed. So, thank you Lee for the constructive comments. I continue to research this aspect of the assassination; and hopefully I will soon be adding some new eyewitness quotes and corroboration from other films. One last thing. I'm not trying to establish a "theory". Theories are more complex and more involving of conjecture than what I'm getting at - which is an observation. I want people to look at the frames of the film and tell me what they see. I see something reflected in the trunk lid. As I said several times in my paper - if it's reflected in the trunk lid it can't be on the lawn. Can a mirror on a wall reflect the wall it's hanging on? Thanks for your time Frank No worries Frank and welcome to the Forum. I like the way your thought processes work. As to littering - there was a strong wind blowing that day. Each Polaroid shot taken by Moorman would have had the backing involved, plus the wiping required. Letting one get away from you when you are busy, or suddenly fixed with the prospect that the President is about to roll by - not too far to leap. Plus some people just don't care at all, as evidenced by the Native American on the horse commercials. More than one photo of folks digging about on the lawn and pocketing stuff. I had never heard before that Harper remained in the plaza all night - I find that very odd. Did he see the individuals with the crane chased off by the cops - as remarked by David Lifton? I find that hard to believe that he stayed there all night - however, there is still the disconnect with respect to where Roberdeau was told by Harper that the fragment was discovered by Harper and where you are locating the fragment. Take a look at the Cancellare crops - you can see that the white backing remains in the aftermath photos. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=129169 - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Bailey Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 I'm too young to remember but didn't the backing of a Polaroid photo produce a negative of the photo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Per studies...backing...suddenly appears... Harper Fragment Information http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=3 B..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Caramelli Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Marcel...his theory is nuts. The Bothun photo shows that the white blob in the grass is the backing from one of Mary Moorman's Polaroids. I have posted the image numerous times. Jack Agreed - Moorman took a series of polaroid shots - Jack did a good job demonstrating that the object in the grass was one of the backings from the polaroid film following exposure. Plus a skull fragment of the size of the Harper would have been discovered by all of the folks seen examining the scene after the fact in aftermath photos. Also it is nowhere near where Harper claims to have discovered the fragment the following day. Finally it is nowhere near where Harper showed Don Roberdeau that the fragment was recovered. The 'nutty' part of any theory is one that suggests a fragment of this size could have come from the rear of the head and ended up where Harper indicated he found it - regardless of where the shot originated. Charles - Marcel is from Belgium. I think his English is first rate, especially considering it is not his first language. I also see nothing wrong with creating a word to communicate an idea personally. - lee Hello Lee; Frank Caramelli here. Just got accepted to the forum after a few weeks(!) of website problems. I have yet to post on the forum so I thought I'd try an individual response first. I picked you because you are one of the responders that addressed specifically my finding. Here goes. Wow, if I had a nickle for every Bothun or Cancellieri I've been emailed in the last few months - I'd have a least 45 cents by now. Yes of course I have seen these photographs, and have some opinions. The object in Bothun appears a bit further east than the divit in the lawn, plus we can't forget that a parade just went by and winds were gusting to almost 20 mph, I believe. A piece of paper wouldn't be out of the ordinary. But more importantly, the object in Bothun and Cancellieri looks as much like a skull fragment as a piece of paper. If you refer to Zapruder, and assume the white spot is a piece of paper or Moormans poloroid backing - doesn't that make it a bit too large? Six or eight feet from the curb, more than forty feet from Zapruder (correct me if I'm wrong) that "polaroid backing" would seem to be about ten inches across. But move it closer, as in flying across the limo, and it 's size comes down to, well, about the size of Harper's fragment. You also made the observation that you didn't think it lined up too well with the trunk lid. It's a good commment but I wholeheartedly disagree. If you can "page through" the motion of frames 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, the spot/fragment and it's reflection lines up perfectly. That is one thing that stuck out for me when I first noticed this. The angle of the reflection is also very congruent with the reflection of the first ladies arm a second or so later; I believe the frame I cited was 371. The motion of the fragment in the reflection is, in my opinion, extremley accurate. JFK Murder Solved.com has a good version of Zapruder that you can page through frame by frame. Another thought on Moormans polaroid backing. Hmmm... littering when the POTUS is about to drive down the street. Would you? That "backing" in frame 312 looks to be about twenty feet to Mary's left. the wind was blowing to her right. One thought on the wind - it seems to have settled at the time of the shooting. The flags on the limo seem to be waving because of the motion of the car and maybe just a little added wind. Hard to tell. As far as your comment that somebody would have noticed the fragment lying there; well Harper remained in the plaza all night. I think that is one very enduring mystery, one that will probably never be figured out. And that dovetails with how far Harper was found from the impact at 313. Dealey was littered with skull fragments. Altgens said some landed at this feet. Clint Hill said some slid off the limo and onto the street. Dallas PD made statements that some were thrown in the trash. Then there's the photo of the mystery man digging in the lawn (watched by a Dallas PD officer) shortly after the assassination - no telling what this guy pocketed. So, thank you Lee for the constructive comments. I continue to research this aspect of the assassination; and hopefully I will soon be adding some new eyewitness quotes and corroboration from other films. One last thing. I'm not trying to establish a "theory". Theories are more complex and more involving of conjecture than what I'm getting at - which is an observation. I want people to look at the frames of the film and tell me what they see. I see something reflected in the trunk lid. As I said several times in my paper - if it's reflected in the trunk lid it can't be on the lawn. Can a mirror on a wall reflect the wall it's hanging on? Thanks for your time Frank No worries Frank and welcome to the Forum. I like the way your thought processes work. As to littering - there was a strong wind blowing that day. Each Polaroid shot taken by Moorman would have had the backing involved, plus the wiping required. Letting one get away from you when you are busy, or suddenly fixed with the prospect that the President is about to roll by - not too far to leap. Plus some people just don't care at all, as evidenced by the Native American on the horse commercials. More than one photo of folks digging about on the lawn and pocketing stuff. I had never heard before that Harper remained in the plaza all night - I find that very odd. Did he see the individuals with the crane chased off by the cops - as remarked by David Lifton? I find that hard to believe that he stayed there all night - however, there is still the disconnect with respect to where Roberdeau was told by Harper that the fragment was discovered by Harper and where you are locating the fragment. Take a look at the Cancellare crops - you can see that the white backing remains in the aftermath photos. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=129169 - lee Hello Lee, and thanks for the reply; Sometimes I feel like I'm not enough of an expert on this stuff to be resonding but, yes, Harper was found the next day. And it is amazing that nobody noticed it before. FBI Secret Service, DPD, etc. must have been all over the place; but maybe when the sun went down they moved onto other things. Harper himself seems a little unsure of exactly where he found the fragment. That and the stretch of time before it was found, leaves open the possibility that somehow the thing got moved. I once heard a mention of dogs in Dealey over night but I think that's pretty far fetched. (no pun) I've wondered if somebody stepped on it, walked, and then it fell off their shoe. I've never read about the crane. Is that in Best Evidence? I did meet Lifton once, in L.A.'s KCAL newsroom. I told him McCone was at the autopsy. McCone told me that, in an interview around 1985. He said "...later that night we went over to where the autopsy.." was proceeding. Lifton surmissed that McCone was on the fifth (?) floor at Bethesda, with Jackie, Bobby etc. He also pointed out that McCone was appointed by JFK and therefore not involved in anything sinister. Off topic here, let's go back. Sure, I'd go with Moorman dropping a backing or two, very possible. But again a 313, the thing looks about twenty feet to her left with the wind blowing opposite. Again, as I mentioned yesteday, at the time of the shooting, wind seemed to have dropped. Wow, ace job with the Cancellieri crops; certainly an interesting set of photos and lesser studied at this point; please do forge ahead with that aspect. The guy at far right that you point out isn't very defined - almost looks like he has a military uniform on doesn't it? Right shoulder possibly has a badge/emblem. Military presence in Dealey that day just freaks me out. In the crowd west of the freeway sign in Zapruder, a guy looks like he has on an MP uniform, with a blue helmet. The guy with white pants on; can't tell if he's been circled or a drop of liquid got on the photo there at some point. Before I go; checked out Costella's eyewitness statements he has just compiled. Another ace job. I found this one to be interesting in regards to my finding. I go with finding - not "theory". I don't have a theory really - it's more of an observation; as in "hey look at these frames." Keep in mind it's trunk lid reflection I'm trying to get others to consider; in my mind white things on the grass are a different (but certainly related) issue. Ruby Henderson December 6, 1963 (paraphrased by I don't know who; FBI?) "...saw what she thought was paper fly out of the car..." "...realized what she thought was paper was probably flesh..." Maybe because it was white. How about this whopper. - Bill Newman in Jim Marrs "Crossfire" "...a shot took the right side of his head off. His ear flew off." Ear? How about a skull fragment? Anyhow; thanks again for the reply, I will certainly pay attention to your posts. Your Cancelieri work is leading the pack. All the best Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Caramelli Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Marcel...his theory is nuts. The Bothun photo shows that the white blob in the grass is the backing from one of Mary Moorman's Polaroids. I have posted the image numerous times. Jack Agreed - Moorman took a series of polaroid shots - Jack did a good job demonstrating that the object in the grass was one of the backings from the polaroid film following exposure. Plus a skull fragment of the size of the Harper would have been discovered by all of the folks seen examining the scene after the fact in aftermath photos. Also it is nowhere near where Harper claims to have discovered the fragment the following day. Finally it is nowhere near where Harper showed Don Roberdeau that the fragment was recovered. The 'nutty' part of any theory is one that suggests a fragment of this size could have come from the rear of the head and ended up where Harper indicated he found it - regardless of where the shot originated. Charles - Marcel is from Belgium. I think his English is first rate, especially considering it is not his first language. I also see nothing wrong with creating a word to communicate an idea personally. - lee Hello Lee; Frank Caramelli here. Just got accepted to the forum after a few weeks(!) of website problems. I have yet to post on the forum so I thought I'd try an individual response first. I picked you because you are one of the responders that addressed specifically my finding. Here goes. Wow, if I had a nickle for every Bothun or Cancellieri I've been emailed in the last few months - I'd have a least 45 cents by now. Yes of course I have seen these photographs, and have some opinions. The object in Bothun appears a bit further east than the divit in the lawn, plus we can't forget that a parade just went by and winds were gusting to almost 20 mph, I believe. A piece of paper wouldn't be out of the ordinary. But more importantly, the object in Bothun and Cancellieri looks as much like a skull fragment as a piece of paper. If you refer to Zapruder, and assume the white spot is a piece of paper or Moormans poloroid backing - doesn't that make it a bit too large? Six or eight feet from the curb, more than forty feet from Zapruder (correct me if I'm wrong) that "polaroid backing" would seem to be about ten inches across. But move it closer, as in flying across the limo, and it 's size comes down to, well, about the size of Harper's fragment. You also made the observation that you didn't think it lined up too well with the trunk lid. It's a good commment but I wholeheartedly disagree. If you can "page through" the motion of frames 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, the spot/fragment and it's reflection lines up perfectly. That is one thing that stuck out for me when I first noticed this. The angle of the reflection is also very congruent with the reflection of the first ladies arm a second or so later; I believe the frame I cited was 371. The motion of the fragment in the reflection is, in my opinion, extremley accurate. JFK Murder Solved.com has a good version of Zapruder that you can page through frame by frame. Another thought on Moormans polaroid backing. Hmmm... littering when the POTUS is about to drive down the street. Would you? That "backing" in frame 312 looks to be about twenty feet to Mary's left. the wind was blowing to her right. One thought on the wind - it seems to have settled at the time of the shooting. The flags on the limo seem to be waving because of the motion of the car and maybe just a little added wind. Hard to tell. As far as your comment that somebody would have noticed the fragment lying there; well Harper remained in the plaza all night. I think that is one very enduring mystery, one that will probably never be figured out. And that dovetails with how far Harper was found from the impact at 313. Dealey was littered with skull fragments. Altgens said some landed at this feet. Clint Hill said some slid off the limo and onto the street. Dallas PD made statements that some were thrown in the trash. Then there's the photo of the mystery man digging in the lawn (watched by a Dallas PD officer) shortly after the assassination - no telling what this guy pocketed. So, thank you Lee for the constructive comments. I continue to research this aspect of the assassination; and hopefully I will soon be adding some new eyewitness quotes and corroboration from other films. One last thing. I'm not trying to establish a "theory". Theories are more complex and more involving of conjecture than what I'm getting at - which is an observation. I want people to look at the frames of the film and tell me what they see. I see something reflected in the trunk lid. As I said several times in my paper - if it's reflected in the trunk lid it can't be on the lawn. Can a mirror on a wall reflect the wall it's hanging on? Thanks for your time Frank No worries Frank and welcome to the Forum. I like the way your thought processes work. As to littering - there was a strong wind blowing that day. Each Polaroid shot taken by Moorman would have had the backing involved, plus the wiping required. Letting one get away from you when you are busy, or suddenly fixed with the prospect that the President is about to roll by - not too far to leap. Plus some people just don't care at all, as evidenced by the Native American on the horse commercials. More than one photo of folks digging about on the lawn and pocketing stuff. I had never heard before that Harper remained in the plaza all night - I find that very odd. Did he see the individuals with the crane chased off by the cops - as remarked by David Lifton? I find that hard to believe that he stayed there all night - however, there is still the disconnect with respect to where Roberdeau was told by Harper that the fragment was discovered by Harper and where you are locating the fragment. Take a look at the Cancellare crops - you can see that the white backing remains in the aftermath photos. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=129169 - lee Hello Lee, and thanks for the reply; Sometimes I feel like I'm not enough of an expert on this stuff to be resonding but, yes, Harper was found the next day. And it is amazing that nobody noticed it before. FBI Secret Service, DPD, etc. must have been all over the place; but maybe when the sun went down they moved onto other things. Harper himself seems a little unsure of exactly where he found the fragment. That and the stretch of time before it was found, leaves open the possibility that somehow the thing got moved. I once heard a mention of dogs in Dealey over night but I think that's pretty far fetched. (no pun) I've wondered if somebody stepped on it, walked, and then it fell off their shoe. I've never read about the crane. Is that in Best Evidence? I did meet Lifton once, in L.A.'s KCAL newsroom. I told him McCone was at the autopsy. McCone told me that, in an interview around 1985. He said "...later that night we went over to where the autopsy.." was proceeding. Lifton surmissed that McCone was on the fifth (?) floor at Bethesda, with Jackie, Bobby etc. He also pointed out that McCone was appointed by JFK and therefore not involved in anything sinister. Off topic here, let's go back. Sure, I'd go with Moorman dropping a backing or two, very possible. But again a 313, the thing looks about twenty feet to her left with the wind blowing opposite. Again, as I mentioned yesteday, at the time of the shooting, wind seemed to have dropped. Wow, ace job with the Cancellieri crops; certainly an interesting set of photos and lesser studied at this point; please do forge ahead with that aspect. The guy at far right that you point out isn't very defined - almost looks like he has a military uniform on doesn't it? Right shoulder possibly has a badge/emblem. Military presence in Dealey that day just freaks me out. In the crowd west of the freeway sign in Zapruder, a guy looks like he has on an MP uniform, with a blue helmet. The guy with white pants on; can't tell if he's been circled or a drop of liquid got on the photo there at some point. Before I go; checked out Costella's eyewitness statements he has just compiled. Another ace job. I found this one to be interesting in regards to my finding. I go with finding - not "theory". I don't have a theory really - it's more of an observation; as in "hey look at these frames." Keep in mind it's trunk lid reflection I'm trying to get others to consider; in my mind white things on the grass are a different (but certainly related) issue. Ruby Henderson December 6, 1963 (paraphrased by I don't know who; FBI?) "...saw what she thought was paper fly out of the car..." "...realized what she thought was paper was probably flesh..." Maybe because it was white. How about this whopper. - Bill Newman in Jim Marrs "Crossfire" "...a shot took the right side of his head off. His ear flew off." Ear? How about a skull fragment? Anyhow; thanks again for the reply, I will certainly pay attention to your posts. Your Cancelieri work is leading the pack. All the best Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Caramelli Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Per studies...backing...suddenly appears...Harper Fragment Information http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=3 B..... Dear Bernice; Thank you very much for the cache of information available at Mary Ferrell. "Twenty five feet south" looks to be the first recorded location of the fragment and I think it fits accurately with what I'm trying to put across. I do want to take sharp exception in regards to your graphic that uses the frame number 312. There is no white spot in 312. As a matter of fact, I have thought that if this thing is a piece of paper, or Moorman's polaroid tab we would see the corner of in in 312. But we don't. No white spot until 313. No white spot until bullet impact. I have never seen a version of Zapruder that shows any white spot (or even hint of it) at 312. As I've said in my article; examine 327, 328, 329, 330. The reflection is in the trunk lid. Because something is flying over the trunk. "... a shot took off the right side of his head..." "His ear flew off." Jim Newman. There are numerous examples where eyewitnesses note things flying through the air; inclucing Ruby Henderson "saw what she" 'thought was a piece of paper fly out of the car'. Thank you again for your input; your thoughts ideas and knowledge are greatly appreciated. Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 (edited) Per studies...backing...suddenly appears...Harper Fragment Information http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=3 B..... Dear Bernice; Thank you very much for the cache of information available at Mary Ferrell. "Twenty five feet south" looks to be the first recorded location of the fragment and I think it fits accurately with what I'm trying to put across. I do want to take sharp exception in regards to your graphic that uses the frame number 312. There is no white spot in 312. As a matter of fact, I have thought that if this thing is a piece of paper, or Moorman's polaroid tab we would see the corner of in in 312. But we don't. No white spot until 313. No white spot until bullet impact. I have never seen a version of Zapruder that shows any white spot (or even hint of it) at 312. As I've said in my article; examine 327, 328, 329, 330. The reflection is in the trunk lid. Because something is flying over the trunk. "... a shot took off the right side of his head..." "His ear flew off." Jim Newman. There are numerous examples where eyewitnesses note things flying through the air; inclucing Ruby Henderson "saw what she" 'thought was a piece of paper fly out of the car'. Thank you again for your input; your thoughts ideas and knowledge are greatly appreciated. Frank ********** Hi Frank: That is correct, there is no white whatever in Zap frame 312..as per others and Dr.David Mantik's studies.. I believe that is in the book.....Assassination Studies ... If you look more closely perhaps you will see that it is not there....and suddenly appears.. There were a few witnesses that mention such as they thought they saw like a white confetti fly up... I do think this was the brain matter...along with parts of the skull....imo.. and yes I agree with you there us definetely something seen , flying up as well as to the back....over the the trunk..of the limo.. B..... Edited December 11, 2007 by Bernice Moore 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