The Harper fragment captured within the Zapruder film

[Chris Davidson]

Hi Frank,

Welcome to the forum.

I hope this will help.

The white spot stays in the same location through approx. these 23 frames. (see movie)

I believe the blurring when watching it unstabilizied, is what gives it the appearance of movement.

Notice the white objects relation to the brown grass patch it lies on. (Reason I have it looping back and forth)

It never moves from that patch.

The white streak across the trunk could be Jackie's white glove as she reaches around toward Jack. ???

People in the background move in relation to the limo.

chris

[Bernice Moore]

From Jack......

B..

[Jack White]

My apologies for calling Frank's study "nutty" without having

read it...only a summary of it saying the object in the grass

in Bothun was the Harper fragment.

After reading Frank's recent postings I find him to be most

lucid and sincere, and he has done some excellent research

on this subject.

Having said that, I still disagree with his premise, and have

asked Bernice to post a study here.

Jack

Edit...I have never been a hundred percent certain that

this is a Polaroid backing...only that it is about the right

size and shape and location and has a slight curvature

and is rectangular shape with aspect ratio of about 4:3.

It could be something else, but unlikely.

Also, a bone fragment surely would have been noticed

if it were the Bothun object, but a piece of paper ignored.

Edited December 12, 2007 by Jack White

[Jack White]

duplicate deleted

Edited December 12, 2007 by Jack White

[Frank Caramelli]

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.....

Hello Bernice;

First thank you for the nice, yet contrasty (whoops makin' up words again) frames of Nix. I've searched for a matched frame to try to see the flying skull fragment in both Nix and Muchmore. Very difficult especially with the copies I was using. Muchmore has people in the way of most of that action. I continue to work with Nix on a frame that shows the fragment right above the President and First Lady. Also difficult in the copies I have, but I'm hoping I can get a match. In my article I wrote about the fragment drifting to the back of the limo. I'm now more inclined to point out the car driving under the fragment; in addition to the drift backwards; I think that is more accurate. The wind created by the car itself; the bow wave if you will, could have had an added effect on the fragment.

Thanks again, your expertise is amazing.

Frank

[Jack White]

Frank...I suggest you first authenticate the Zapruder and Nix films

before making studies regarding them. It is a waste of brainpower

to study altered films.

Jack

[Frank Caramelli]

Hi Frank,

Welcome to the forum.

I hope this will help.

The white spot stays in the same location through approx. these 23 frames. (see movie)

I believe the blurring when watching it unstabilizied, is what gives it the appearance of movement.

Notice the white objects relation to the brown grass patch it lies on. (Reason I have it looping back and forth)

It never moves from that patch.

The white streak across the trunk could be Jackie's white glove as she reaches around toward Jack. ???

People in the background move in relation to the limo.

chris

Hello Chris and thank you for your interest;

As best I can tell, the brown patch is a divit in the lawn. And your point is well taken that the white spot doesn't seem to stray very far from it. But consider these facts. We're only talking about one and one quarter seconds. There are differences in the relation to the divit in noted frames. Try 315 for low. Try 321 for high I believe the fragment is spinning and quite rapidly. I've tried a crude experiment, try it yourself. Grab something small and disklike, such as the cap of a jar. I have a cork drink coaster that works pretty good, it's about 3 inces across, half an inch thick. Get youself in an open space and throw the disk away from you, try to make it go about ten feet. It will move in an arc, lose altitude and then hit the ground. Now again trying to throw ten feet, spin the thing frisbee style. It will drift back towards you. Every time. Some throws more than others; but it will lose distance and come back your way every time. This is the motion I'm seeing in Zapruder. Something disklike and spinning; the limosine driving under it, and a slight drift backward, as it moves out of frame.

Yours is the second guess I've seen that said maybe Jackie's glove. Nope. Not even close. Can't buy that at all. Other guesses - something on the south portico. I say too far. The oblisk. Way to far; angle all wrong. A good one - a reflection from Hargis' windscreen. Good reasoning, but there's no glint in the windscreen itself, so I say no.

Thanks for your input Chris; your expertise is much appreciated.

Frank

[Bernice Moore]

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.....

Hello Bernice;

First thank you for the nice, yet contrasty (whoops makin' up words again) frames of Nix. I've searched for a matched frame to try to see the flying skull fragment in both Nix and Muchmore. Very difficult especially with the copies I was using. Muchmore has people in the way of most of that action. I continue to work with Nix on a frame that shows the fragment right above the President and First Lady. Also difficult in the copies I have, but I'm hoping I can get a match. In my article I wrote about the fragment drifting to the back of the limo. I'm now more inclined to point out the car driving under the fragment; in addition to the drift backwards; I think that is more accurate. The wind created by the car itself; the bow wave if you will, could have had an added effect on the fragment.

Thanks again, your expertise is amazing.

Frank

**************

Hi Frank :

Contrasty, I like that one also...

I wanted to let you know the black Gifs, are not my work, I am a collector, and I have lost the name of the researcher

who created them for us, so they are not to my credit, but I am a packrat..and do save the information...so a thank you to whomever....

also I include a closer look at the black gif..

I have here a couple of small gifs, also, that may help you in some way, they are of Jackie, reaching onto the back of the limo.

In Zapruder as well as the Nix. They do not seem to correlate in some ways, though the filming angles were different I realise, so FWTAW.

In the Zap gif I do think you can actually see her right hand, grasp the piece of his head, and start to return to the back seat ,

as Clint Hill has reached her, that she held onto till she handed it to a Doctor at Parkland, telling him it might help.....

.....there also appears to be other pieces that have flown backwards and landed on the trunk..

The one that appears to be a larger piece that goes straight up, in the black gif.......I do

wonder if that could be what they called the Harper fragment...that disappeared....?

Many thanks carry on......

B.....

Edited December 12, 2007 by Bernice Moore

[Lee Forman]

What would be helpful here would be if Don Roberdeau could weigh-in with a response as to the account provided to him by Harper when he fixed the location for the discovery of the fragment where he did. As I have noted before, a fragment of the size 'discovered' by Harper and not recovered by the many spectators and by-standers in the area - where we see it on Don's plat, suggests a plant that evening for additional circumstantial evidence pointing towards a 6th floor east window TSBD shot and nothing more. If it's a piece of the occiput, as has been suggested by multiple experts, it is a physical impossibility and phenomenon against all possible laws of physics that it would have been found where Harper suggested to Roberdeau. If it had been found closer to Altgens location then it begs the question - seriously begs, as to how it was possible that it went uncovered on 11/22 when Harry Holmes was disposing of his various pieces of 'corruption.' But it's only in Dallas in 1963 that you can destroy crucial crime scene evidence involving the assassination of a President and act like you did nothing wrong, and no consequences of any kind follow.

[Robin Unger]

Lee.

Does Dons plat have the harper fragment in this general area.

That seems a long way from the Limo at Z-313 ??

Edited December 12, 2007 by Robin Unger

[Frank Caramelli]

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.....

Hello Bernice;

First thank you for the nice, yet contrasty (whoops makin' up words again) frames of Nix. I've searched for a matched frame to try to see the flying skull fragment in both Nix and Muchmore. Very difficult especially with the copies I was using. Muchmore has people in the way of most of that action. I continue to work with Nix on a frame that shows the fragment right above the President and First Lady. Also difficult in the copies I have, but I'm hoping I can get a match. In my article I wrote about the fragment drifting to the back of the limo. I'm now more inclined to point out the car driving under the fragment; in addition to the drift backwards; I think that is more accurate. The wind created by the car itself; the bow wave if you will, could have had an added effect on the fragment.

Thanks again, your expertise is amazing.

Frank

**************

Hi Frank :

Contrasty, I like that one also...

I wanted to let you know the black Gifs, are not my work, I am a collector, and I have lost the name of the researcher

who created them for us, so they are not to my credit, but I am a packrat..and do save the information...so a thank you to whomever....

also I include a closer look at the black gif..

I have here a couple of small gifs, also, that may help you in some way, they are of Jackie, reaching onto the back of the limo.

In Zapruder as well as the Nix. They do not seem to correlate in some ways, though the filming angles were different I realise, so FWTAW.

In the Zap gif I do think you can actually see her right hand, grasp the piece of his head, and start to return to the back seat ,

as Clint Hill has reached her, that she held onto till she handed it to a Doctor at Parkland, telling him it might help.....

.....there also appears to be other pieces that have flown backwards and landed on the trunk..

The one that appears to be a larger piece that goes straight up, in the black gif.......I do

wonder if that could be what they called the Harper fragment...that disappeared....?

Many thanks carry on......

B.....

The black gif you posted this morning is amazing; do you have more frames? There really does seem to be a large fragment coming off. Would love to see following frames as far as which direction that piece was going.

Pack rating, or is it rat packing? Is great. Over the years I have had many copies of Z film on vhs, dubbed from the libraries at the various TV stations I have worked. They were always different. I remember a copy where that small fragment in 313 that looks to be coming off at high speed, at about a one o'clock angle; just wasn't there. I would love to have that copy now to look for evidence of airbrushing. Maybe the dub was just so far down in generation loss you couldn't see that "spike" (as I've heard it called). I'm pretty sure I threw out a few copies, it would be interesting to have those if for nothing else than to compare the framing of the dubs. Producer Pete Noyes here in L A had a very early copy - he broadcast it on KCOP in 1969 - the earliest broadcast I believe. It would be great to get a look at that copy. My memories of my first viewing of Zapruder (UC Santa Cruz, at a dorm room party @ 1974) are that the color was so washed out, the grass in the backround didn't even loook green. The frame rate was fouled up somehow and gave it a fast motion feel - maybe ten percent faster than reality. The copy ran from the freeway sign (with limo hid) to a couple of frames after 313. No slo mo or freeze available on the projector the guy showing it had.

The correlation with Nix and Zapruder you posted is also very interesting. I've never really picked up where Jackie closes her hand around something, it looks to me that her hand is flat on the trunk lid when she either thinks better of grabbing something or is shouted back into the car by Agent Hill. By the way, Hill told Mike Wallace that pieces of skull and brain slid off the back of the car and onto the street - so there we have more evidence of even more skull fragments lying about Dealey Plaza and never finding their way to investigators. Since I'm digressing here let me move over to pure speculation. I've always strongly considered the possibility that Jackie's coming out of the car is the reason a shot went wild and ricochetted (sp) off the overpass and hit Teague in the face. An assassin to the rear, ready to fire again, sees Jackie (moving to the trunk lid) and pulls his shot; but he (accidently) pulled the trigger while abandoning the shot. That shot hitting the overpass is some of the best evidence that that shooter wasn't on the upper floors of the Depository.

Back to the First Lady. I'm pretty vague on the idea that she handed something to the doctors. I've heard that, but don't know if I've ever seen it written down and/or considered as evidence. I should look through Lifton's stuff, if anybody would have covered that it would be him. The comparison of the Z film and Nix you posted is valuable, as an "eyes only" guy, I'll have to watch it a couple of hundred times to try to evaluate it. Only half kidding. There does seem to be a descrepancy in the Black jumping on and grabbing Jackie's arm frames.

Back to the black gif. I wonder if it's Harper flying off there or another similar sized fragment from the top of the head. I could go with the idea that my "flying skull fragment/not paper on the grass" observation is a fragment other than Harper. But all in all I'm not sure we really know precisely from which part of the skull Harper came from. There's only a few of photographs after all. But I must respect the work and writings of those (some of them doctors) who know a lot more about anatomy than I do.

One thing that encompasses all of this are the frangible bullet theories. For my money this is why Zapruder was held from the public for so long. This (the use of frangibles) greatly adds to confusion about the direction of shots. I'll have to leave that there, or else go into the huge topic but obvious fact that shot direction could have been determined at autopsy. As far as any experience I have with gunshots, it almost all comes from working in TV news and films/videos. I make it a point not to seek that stuff out, but I have seen videos of head wounds inflicted. Sure blood flies. And brain and skull. But not, let me emphasize, NOT like what you see at Z313. I think if the public saw this film as early as they saw Muchmore (shown in theatres a couple of weeks after 11/22/63) a lot of people would have puzzeled over it. Military people, hunters, target shooters. All would have had a great big "huh?". I point out in my article that Life magazine blotted out the white spot from published Zapruder frames.

Thank you Bernice for the fine addition in visuals in this area; just in the last couple of days I started getting very thoughtful and helpful responses. Yours have been some of those. Thanks again for your help and expertise.

Frank

[Frank Caramelli]

What would be helpful here would be if Don Roberdeau could weigh-in with a response as to the account provided to him by Harper when he fixed the location for the discovery of the fragment where he did. As I have noted before, a fragment of the size 'discovered' by Harper and not recovered by the many spectators and by-standers in the area - where we see it on Don's plat, suggests a plant that evening for additional circumstantial evidence pointing towards a 6th floor east window TSBD shot and nothing more. If it's a piece of the occiput, as has been suggested by multiple experts, it is a physical impossibility and phenomenon against all possible laws of physics that it would have been found where Harper suggested to Roberdeau. If it had been found closer to Altgens location then it begs the question - seriously begs, as to how it was possible that it went uncovered on 11/22 when Harry Holmes was disposing of his various pieces of 'corruption.' But it's only in Dallas in 1963 that you can destroy crucial crime scene evidence involving the assassination of a President and act like you did nothing wrong, and no consequences of any kind follow.

Roberdeau's map is a masterwork. Not just for the geography but the timeline as well. It may be the most usefull single page in all of the available research.

Let me talk overall about the ideas you posted today Lee. Again very helpful. It is really baffling as to why Harper wasn't discovered earlier. Perhaps hidden in the crevice between curb and lawn? And then somehow moved later? Moved inadvertently, by someone stepping on it and then walking, then it drops off their shoe. Wow, that seems impossible. Handled by a child, and then dropped, maybe on command of a parent who didn't know what it was. Don't know about that either; have never seen (photos of) children in the center median area post assassination. You're kind of taking a vast conspiracy tack on this and I think there would be the serious question of why move it? Why not just pocket it? How would relocating it indicate shots from the TSBD? Atgens said fragments landed at this feet, but if my memory serves me they were small ones. Harry Holmes is someone I just found out about, and I believe is a newer character on the scene, if you will. He's fishy as hell too. About as fishy as Ruth Paine, who I would count as at least a bad actress, in interviews I've seen with her, it's almost like she's pretending to not be as smart as she is; which seems pretty smart. She also hints that she bareley knew Oswald; yeah, right, that's why he called her (not Marina!) after his arrest. Off topic here, let's go back.

Keep in mind that I think Harper is flying and spinning through the air. And I think spinning pretty vigorously. I seriously entertain the idea that the fragment glanced off Hargis' windscreen. Check the frames (333 -337 I think), a real good change of direction comes in there right as it passes Hargis' screen. So it's spinning. And hits the ground. And takes off rolling. Further into the center meridian, and away from where the crowd of investigators and suedo investigators that will gather later. Keep in mind the sun is low in the sky in late November , and though sundown may be 5Pm or so, visibility drops pretty rapidly after 4:15 of so. That doesn't leave a whole lot of time, roughly two hours, for whatever that crowd was doing out there.

So to crystalize my scenario a bit. 313 is a shot from the north portico area. Maybe TSBD west side, lower floor, maybe first floor. Frangible hits President; sending top of his head flying and spinning, possibly Harper, with exact part of the skull it came from still in question to this day; we only have a few photos. Spins, hovers, helicopters, whatever you want to call it, over the limosine; reflected in trunk lid; glances off Hargis' windscreen; hits lawn and takes off rolling at a decent clip and winds up away from the area examined that afternoon. If it flies, spins, lands, and then rolls a good distance away; are we still in the realm of physical impossibility?

Hey c'mon it's not "only' in Dallas in '63, that one can destroy evidence - it's been going on wholesale ever since!!

Thanks for your help on this Lee.

Frank

[Jack White]

Frank...it took me twenty years to abandon reliance on the Z film. I studied it

that long, frame by frame, before I began to see all the phony parts of it and

finally formulated my GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX. I then realized how much

time I had wasted on phony "evidence".

No criticism intended, but I suggest you investigate the validity of the film

before wasting additional time analyzing animated skull fragments. I am just

trying to save others from wasting time like I did.

Jack

[Frank Caramelli]

Frank...it took me twenty years to abandon reliance on the Z film. I studied it

that long, frame by frame, before I began to see all the phony parts of it and

finally formulated my GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX. I then realized how much

time I had wasted on phony "evidence".

No criticism intended, but I suggest you investigate the validity of the film

before wasting additional time analyzing animated skull fragments. I am just

trying to save others from wasting time like I did.

Jack

Hello Jack;

It is an honor and a pleasure to hear from you. I have thoroughly read your book. More than once. In my opinion it contains a wealth of valid information, a lot I agree with and honestly a lot I don't. I would like to discuss different aspects of your book, but right now I want to be selfish and ask you some questions about my findings.

First off, I must note the somewhat split reaction you have had to my article. You say the white spot isn't a skull fragment, because Bothun and Cancelliere show pieces of paper lying in the street post assassination. I'd like to ask why, if you think wholesale changes have been made to the film, you are of the opinion that the white spot is something lying in the grass?

Wouldn't those masters of alteration just paint out the white spot so as to take away the suspicions of people like me, who years later, would notice the trunk lid reflection?

Do you think the white spot was painted in? (I'll just use that term -painted in- there's a whole load of them as you know, matted, airbrushed, keyed, rotoscoped, supered etc.)

If so why? To add a back to front motion? Over the years I've entertained the idea that the" spike" at 313 was added to give a back to front motion. By "spike" I mean that fragment coming off at about a one o'clock angle.

Back to painting in the white spot. The alterationists also painted in the trunk lid reflection?

I'm going to go with the idea that you accept that something reflected in the trunk lid can't be lying on the lawn. It's just impossible. A mirror can't reflect the wall it's hanging on.

If the white spot was painted in; is the trunk lid reflection painted in as well? That's some darn thorough work, but I don't see to what end. And yes I fully believe it could have been done.

I want to get over that topic before I go on. I'm aware that any given frame, or all of them, could have been blown up to 12" by 10" photo prints and worked on in all kinds of ways, with all kinds of tools, and then reduced back down to 8mm. Printed one frame at a time. Reviewed and retried. Yes, I know way back in 1963 all these photos techniques were already in use. There's a shot from the movie Tora Tora Tora where a kamikaze hits the deck of a ship and a soldier runs like crazy to save his life. It's all in one frame, in one shot, and just a little logic tells you the studios did not crash a flaming plane within fifty yards of a stunt man. But wow, is that shot believable. It's probaby models, a real ship, and a guy running in front of a rear projection.

But Jack, that's at play speed. If one were to examine frames of that film it would be a piece of cake to see where the matte began. One could tell if two shots were used or a painting or a still photo. Or etched glass, a technique still used today, even though it dates to at least the thirties if not earlier.

I'm sitting in front of a decent non linear computer edit system right now. In a matter of minutes I could grab the Zapruder film, grab a shot of Richard Nixon walking across the White House lawn and put Nixon on the center median, strolling near Toni Grant. (hope I have that name right). That's in a few minutes, give me a couple af days and it would be totally seamless.

Again Jack, that's at play speed. Examining a given frame, you would see the matte edge, you would see the descrepancy of luminence. You'd see the difference of color tempatures between the two shots. And if you piled these things together, as you would if you did two or three mattes in one frame, and then had to use multiple copies to marry it all together, heck you'd be lucky if it looked good at play speed. We can't lose sight of the fact that to alter Zapruder you start with an existing film. Your stuck with it; additions have to be matched to that existing copy. Even if you had the luxury of shooting something with the purpose in mind of matting it later, matching it frame wise, both edge and size, matching color temps, that aren't perfect to begin with, not to mention jiggle and blur of a hand held camera, wow, this could get away from one real easily.

OK. Let move on. I want to get your opinion specifically on the trunk lid reflection. You've seen my article and know what it entails. I want to ask you to have a look at 323. As I say in my paper, the frame is clear enough that we see the texture of the First Lady's hat. Thank Zapruder's panning motion for being nicely in sync with the speed of the limousine. Check out the white spot in this frame. Is there not a descrepancy in the motion blur? Sure one would expect that something lying on the lawn would have some blur, but the clarity of this frame shows the spot also to be elongated, in addition to being blurred by Zapruder's pan. There's a litttle more at work here than initially meets the eye. Frame 323 shows the additonal blur of a spinning, flying skull fragment. There is an added motion in that frame that is perfectly natural if we assume the white spot to be a flying and spinning skull fragment.

Now move up to the frames where the skull fragment starts to cross the trunk lid. The first is 326. The fragment, subject to the low in the sky light source (the sun) reflects that light emanating from the source relative to the camera location. What were talking about is the opposite of shadow. The light post in the backround that will soon be visible, is casting a shadow at the same angle that the fragment, and everything else for that matter, is reflecting light. Our flying fragment, being white and spinning, is catching and passing on, if you will, a little bit more light. Now consider that angle when you see the white spot and it's attendant trunk lid reflection if frame 327. The reflection is further to the rear of the car than the fragment. In perfect congruence with the light source. I know you understand how light sources and reflection, absorbtion and shadow and refraction work together, Jack, but I wanted to have a complete explaination for the other readers as well.

As far as painting in the white spot, doesn't this perfection in angle, it's trunk lid reflection, and the fact that that perfection and the continuity of motion continues through frames 327, 328, 329, 330, make that hard to believe? I know technologicallly it was possible. And nobody really saw the film for twelve years, but to fake this aspect of Zapruder, and pull it off so perfectly, is hard to believe. And for what purpose? It would be easier to make a flying skull fragment look like a piece of paper on the lawn!

And on that subject; shouldn't the shape of this piece of paper, be nearly identical in at least two frames? Or more? Have a look; start at 313 and go through untill it goes behind Hargis. There are not two frames in which this piece of "paper on the grass" are identical. Skip identical, there aren't two frames where the white spot is even more than passingly similar. It appears different in each and every frame. Because it is flying and spinning. I cited David Mantik at the start of my article. His findings indicated he too, was suspicious of the changing shape of white spot. It's an excellent observation. If it were a piece of paper, it would appear similar or identical in nearly all the frames.

I want to continue this discussion with you Jack so I'll leave the topic there and wait for you to get the chance to respond. I have the utmost respect for your obviously vast knowledge of photography, and truly welcome the opportunity to have you critique my work. When I first noticed the trunk lid reflection I spent a couple of weeks searching books, docs, and the internet to see if anyone had previously mentioned this. I found none. If my finding proves to be insignificant I will still taking pride it the fact that I discovered something undetected for more than forty years, in not only the most studied piece of footage ever, but in the most studied one second of that footage. Again, it is an honor and a pleasure to have you asssistance in pursuing this knowledge.

Before I go. I have recently had communication with a top researcher who assured me that Mary Moorman could account for all her Polaroid tabs after the assaasination. A Polaroid tab may be there in some of the aftermath photographs, but it wouldn't be Mary's.

Thank you for your time and expertise;

All the best

Frank

[Lee Forman]

Per studies...backing...suddenly appears...

Harper Fragment Information

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=3

B.....

Hi Bernice - I reviewed the frames again - I don't believe that this isn't a fair analysis. It seems clear that frames are missing - at a minimum between z312 and z313. So the movement of the film here jerks forward some one foot or so for the background. The paper backing doesn't 'appear' suddenly, it is jerked into our view. Using Moorman as my reference point.

- lee