Lee Forman Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 Lee.Does Dons plat have the harper fragment in this general area. That seems a long way from the Limo at Z-313 ?? Precisely Robin - this is why I have always had a problem with it. If it's a piece of the skull from the rear, how does it travel forward like that, and in such a large section. How does it escape notice. Wouldn't it practically slice through the young couple standing there. How could Harper have been so far off when he showed Roberdeau where he found it. Why is it that we can draw a line back from this location through where Roberdeau has located Kennedy at the time of the headshot and it takes us coincidentally back to the TSBD [albeit the east side]. If the fragment indeed had the indication of a point of entry, it's possible that it could have weakened the skull and provided the path of least resistance for a shot from the front to simply blow out the section of the head - but the fragment itself [if you use a trajectory from the GKS location behind the fence] would have travelled back and ended up where Roberdeau has the Brehm fragment [sketchy on details] marked - or the large piece found in the Lincoln. http://www.manuscriptservice.com/DPQ/fragme~1.htm However, it was Kinney who made a most valuable discovery: the piece of the back of JFK's head lying in the rear seat of the bloody limousine, exactly where Clint Hill told the Warren Commission he saw the "right rear" piece (2H 141). Fellow agents Kellerman (2H 85) and Jerry Behn (Sibert/O'Neill interview, 11/27/63) confirm this fact!Kinney added that the fragment was "clean as a pin" and that it resembled a "flowerpot" or "clay pot" piece, adding, "It was a big piece--half his head was gone." When pressed as to the anatomical orientation of the fragment, he said, "I don't know what else it could have been but the back of his head." Realizing the obvious significance of this discovery (hours BEFORE the "official" limousine search made by ASAIC Floyd Boring), Kinney put in a phone patch to Admiral George Burkley (unfortunately, like many other events, this radio traffic no longer exists on the heavily edited Air Force One radio tapes currently available...one wonders "why?") Kinney had the fragment in his suit pocket during his talk with Burkley and for the course of the flight back to DC. Upon landing at Andrews Air Force Base, Burkley got hold of the Kinney fragment, although "how" is unclear, as Kinney was evasive on that point--and only on that point, and he did not attend the autopsy. Kinney indicated that he and Burkley were good friends, noting he has Burkley's photo, along with JFK and Truman, on his wall. When asked about Burkley and the autopsy concerns, Kinney indicated, "Well, you have to give orders to people...they [who?] were very hard on Dr. Burkley." Kinney noted, in a clear understatement, "All of these books are always wondering about this incredible missing part--I've had the answer all these years but nobody's called me" (meaning the official investigations as well as private researchers) As Kinney told Bonar Menninger, author of Mortal Error, ("I tried to squelch that book," Kinney notes), the HSCA DID send two investigators to his door, but he said nothing about any of this to them--they didn't ask, and what became of his interview with them is a mystery. Why, then, did Sam Kinney tell me about this. Clearly, not just because I asked. He tried to tell NBC'sToday show the same thing during his first and last t.v. interview, on 11/22/93, but his lengthy interview was edited down to harmless soundbites about John-John's salute, which Kinney had taught him on Veteran's Day, 11 days before the assassination, and other human-interest topics. Kinney, who believes there was a conspiracy (although he believes Oswald was the only shooter, wanted his story told, even if to a relative unknown like me, and with no money, fame, or prestige, things Sam Kinney did not require at age 68. - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 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 Hi Frank - yes, lot's to think about. "There was just pieces of skull and bone and corruption all over the place." The concept requires too much of a leap of faith for me. It would have been easier to simply return to the scene like Harry Olsen did and simply plant it to correspond with a TSBD 6th West window shot. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...4&hl=harper - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 (edited) 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 ************ Lee: Now we meet again, at missing frames... I have been studying this particular gif...and I believe I am seeing what could be a " now you do Not see it, then a sudden Now you do."...? In reference to the backing.... ....Have a look at the distance all appears to move between these two frames...# 312 & 313....and the suddeness of it.......the head shot also appears what, painted in.?? or is it moi..? .....I know little of film cameras, except for what I have tried to comprehend, through the studies so my marginal knowledge is not reliable.... Perhaps you understand their workings more fully.... or someone who does, could give us a grain from their brain.... .David perhaps?..Jack ???.. Thanks........B Edited December 13, 2007 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 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 ************ Lee: Now we meet again, at missing frames... I have been studying this particular gif...and I believe I am seeing what could be a " now you do Not see it, then a sudden Now you do."...? In reference to the backing.... ....Have a look at the distance all appears to move between these two frames...# 312 & 313....and the suddeness of it.......the head shot also appears what, painted in.?? or is it moi..? .....I know little of film cameras, except for what I have tried to comprehend, through the studies so my marginal knowledge is not reliable.... Perhaps you understand their workings more fully.... or someone who does, could give us a grain from their brain.... .David perhaps?..Jack ???.. Thanks........B Bernice, since we know the Zappy film is a crappy fake, I no longer study anything in it. Nothing is real. Why waste time? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 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 ************ Lee: Now we meet again, at missing frames... I have been studying this particular gif...and I believe I am seeing what could be a " now you do Not see it, then a sudden Now you do."...? In reference to the backing.... ....Have a look at the distance all appears to move between these two frames...# 312 & 313....and the suddeness of it.......the head shot also appears what, painted in.?? or is it moi..? .....I know little of film cameras, except for what I have tried to comprehend, through the studies so my marginal knowledge is not reliable.... Perhaps you understand their workings more fully.... or someone who does, could give us a grain from their brain.... .David perhaps?..Jack ???.. Thanks........B Hi Bernice - that graphic I created demonstrates how the background moves. Hence the distance in the background jumps about one foot at a time when you approach z313. The reason for this could be explained as panning, or Zap jiggling, but the Lincoln remains in relatively the same position. So the point I was looking to make was that an object on the grass, where what I believe is the backing from one of Moorman's polaroid photos appears, would suddenly jump into the frame, because the background is suddenly jerking along into view one foot at a time. If you examine the earlier frames, using Moorman herself as the reference point, you can see that the background was advancing inches at a time, prior to the frames leading up to z313. That's the same very basic approach I used to demonstrate missing frames from the Towner film, when it was argued that the film captured 'the entire turn' on to Elm. Again, using all of the information available, it still appears to me that 2 shots to Kennedy's head were combined into one here - mainly be removing frames. There may have also been a strong motivation by the Secret Service to remove the stop seen by numerous witnesses and by individuals that say that they have seen the 'other' film(s), which demonstrated either complicity or incredible incompetence and culpability - a total breakdown and failure of everything that they were trained to do - magnified in only a few frames. And those that have seen the other films [that I have had the opportunity to enquire of] indicated that there was a halt to the Lincoln, that the shot from the rear preceded the shot from the front, and that there was more distance in between the 2 shots than is evident today in the z-film. - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Caramelli Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 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 ************ Lee: Now we meet again, at missing frames... I have been studying this particular gif...and I believe I am seeing what could be a " now you do Not see it, then a sudden Now you do."...? In reference to the backing.... ....Have a look at the distance all appears to move between these two frames...# 312 & 313....and the suddeness of it.......the head shot also appears what, painted in.?? or is it moi..? .....I know little of film cameras, except for what I have tried to comprehend, through the studies so my marginal knowledge is not reliable.... Perhaps you understand their workings more fully.... or someone who does, could give us a grain from their brain.... .David perhaps?..Jack ???.. Thanks........B Hi Bernice - that graphic I created demonstrates how the background moves. Hence the distance in the background jumps about one foot at a time when you approach z313. The reason for this could be explained as panning, or Zap jiggling, but the Lincoln remains in relatively the same position. So the point I was looking to make was that an object on the grass, where what I believe is the backing from one of Moorman's polaroid photos appears, would suddenly jump into the frame, because the background is suddenly jerking along into view one foot at a time. If you examine the earlier frames, using Moorman herself as the reference point, you can see that the background was advancing inches at a time, prior to the frames leading up to z313. That's the same very basic approach I used to demonstrate missing frames from the Towner film, when it was argued that the film captured 'the entire turn' on to Elm. Again, using all of the information available, it still appears to me that 2 shots to Kennedy's head were combined into one here - mainly be removing frames. There may have also been a strong motivation by the Secret Service to remove the stop seen by numerous witnesses and by individuals that say that they have seen the 'other' film(s), which demonstrated either complicity or incredible incompetence and culpability - a total breakdown and failure of everything that they were trained to do - magnified in only a few frames. And those that have seen the other films [that I have had the opportunity to enquire of] indicated that there was a halt to the Lincoln, that the shot from the rear preceded the shot from the front, and that there was more distance in between the 2 shots than is evident today in the z-film. - lee Hey Lee, how you doin' today? Well you guys started with my post, but you've strayed a bit; that's OK. I agree that the white spot jerks into frame; however, you know I think it's a flying fragment. If you want to believe it's a Polaroid tab, fine, but it wouldn't be Mary Moorman's. A very high level researcher e mailed me a couple of days ago and told me, that Mary told him personnally, that she could account for all her Polaroid tabs when she got back to her car after the assassination. So there you go, wev'e advanced knowledge of the assassination right here on this board! It might be a pull tab but it's not Mary's - I told you she wasn't a litter bug! Of course Zapruder's movements are going to be examined over and over and over. We're stuck with them. You're right on that he 'jerked"; sort of panned back and forth a bit unevenly as the limo came down the street. He steadies up real nice at about frame 300. Ever notice JFK doesn't move at all, I mean at all, for about a full second before 313? I've always found that to be one of the very strange details of the film. And it's absolutely not because somebody painted in the same frame over and over. The light changes, you can see it on his hair. All the motion in that second before 313 looks OK to me, it's just real odd that JFK has no motion. We're lucky; Zapruders a good shooter. Does that rhyme? Hey no joking! This is serious. And it is. TV camera guys (and gals) are called shooters. As I mentioned in my paper - Zapruder was a pretty good cameraman. I don't know about two frames combined into one. I think a combined frame is a possibility, however if you go with the years old ( I believe put across by Groden) 313 - from behind; 314 - -nothing; 315 - from the knoll. It's pretty believable that way. Excising frames would create a motion problem with the backround and movements of others in car. I point out over and over in my paper that the continuity of motion is perfect (strong word I know) in frames 313 through 337. I think the trunk lid reflection is good proof of the veracity of Zapruder. I'm surprised more WC supporters haven't jumped on and used my paper as a spingboard for "shots only came from behind". I did get a little of that when I was putting the paper together. As in "yeah, skull fragment flying forward; that because Oswald acted alone". Everybody's got a right, right? The car stopping. How about this? It stopped in peoples minds. That horrible instant. Frozen in you memory. I was at a party once and watched a young lady walk into a sliding glass door. I glanced over at her walking and when she hit the door everything went into slow motiion. It still looks that way in my memory. She was fine. Couple of cuts. Anyhow, I think there's a real good possibility that for a lot of eyewitnesses, the final second of JFK's life is just that - frozen in their minds. Ask them if the limos stopped and they'd be real likely to say "yeah, it stopped.". Other films don't show a stop, Zapruder doesn't show a stop. Is everthing doctored? Secret Service breakdown. Hell yeah. Slowly turning at the sound of a "backfire" or "firecrackers". Notice how they always use(d) those words. Of course nobody wanted to say "I heard a shot." That would rather beg the question "Why didn't you move?" And they didn't. The two on the passenger side of the follow up car turn and look right at Oswald there at the top of the steps of the depoitory. Check Altgens 5, they are NOT looking UP! They are looking straight. Noted in my paper. Anyone want to entertain the possibility that Oswald yelled something? Crazy? Calling attention to himself, at that instant, why? I don't think Oswald was on the sixth floor, but then again, from the time 11:50 or so, to the time of the shooting we really don't know where Oswald was, now do we? Sort of. By the coke machine? Heading to the lunchroom? In the lunchroom? Ever notice how those sighting aren't exactly corroberated. How about letting someone in the back door? Or just unlocking a door? You know, it helps to make your patsy a at least a little bit guilty. Oh darn, I forgot! Posner knows exactly where Oswald was during that half hour. And Posner even mapped his "escape route". Yeah, right. A real chunk of bs that escape route stuff. The Towner film. Wow, talk about a good shooter. This woman panned very smoothly, everything nicely in frame, she has a real good eye. And then she shuts off right as the front porch of TSBD comes into view. Fishy, real fishy. Was she ever interviewed about what she filmed, or thought she filmed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 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 ************ Lee: Now we meet again, at missing frames... I have been studying this particular gif...and I believe I am seeing what could be a " now you do Not see it, then a sudden Now you do."...? In reference to the backing.... ....Have a look at the distance all appears to move between these two frames...# 312 & 313....and the suddeness of it.......the head shot also appears what, painted in.?? or is it moi..? .....I know little of film cameras, except for what I have tried to comprehend, through the studies so my marginal knowledge is not reliable.... Perhaps you understand their workings more fully.... or someone who does, could give us a grain from their brain.... .David perhaps?..Jack ???.. Thanks........B Hi Bernice - that graphic I created demonstrates how the background moves. Hence the distance in the background jumps about one foot at a time when you approach z313. The reason for this could be explained as panning, or Zap jiggling, but the Lincoln remains in relatively the same position. So the point I was looking to make was that an object on the grass, where what I believe is the backing from one of Moorman's polaroid photos appears, would suddenly jump into the frame, because the background is suddenly jerking along into view one foot at a time. If you examine the earlier frames, using Moorman herself as the reference point, you can see that the background was advancing inches at a time, prior to the frames leading up to z313. That's the same very basic approach I used to demonstrate missing frames from the Towner film, when it was argued that the film captured 'the entire turn' on to Elm. Again, using all of the information available, it still appears to me that 2 shots to Kennedy's head were combined into one here - mainly be removing frames. There may have also been a strong motivation by the Secret Service to remove the stop seen by numerous witnesses and by individuals that say that they have seen the 'other' film(s), which demonstrated either complicity or incredible incompetence and culpability - a total breakdown and failure of everything that they were trained to do - magnified in only a few frames. And those that have seen the other films [that I have had the opportunity to enquire of] indicated that there was a halt to the Lincoln, that the shot from the rear preceded the shot from the front, and that there was more distance in between the 2 shots than is evident today in the z-film. - lee Hey Lee, how you doin' today? Well you guys started with my post, but you've strayed a bit; that's OK. I agree that the white spot jerks into frame; however, you know I think it's a flying fragment. If you want to believe it's a Polaroid tab, fine, but it wouldn't be Mary Moorman's. A very high level researcher e mailed me a couple of days ago and told me, that Mary told him personnally, that she could account for all her Polaroid tabs when she got back to her car after the assassination. So there you go, wev'e advanced knowledge of the assassination right here on this board! It might be a pull tab but it's not Mary's - I told you she wasn't a litter bug! Of course Zapruder's movements are going to be examined over and over and over. We're stuck with them. You're right on that he 'jerked"; sort of panned back and forth a bit unevenly as the limo came down the street. He steadies up real nice at about frame 300. Ever notice JFK doesn't move at all, I mean at all, for about a full second before 313? I've always found that to be one of the very strange details of the film. And it's absolutely not because somebody painted in the same frame over and over. The light changes, you can see it on his hair. All the motion in that second before 313 looks OK to me, it's just real odd that JFK has no motion. We're lucky; Zapruders a good shooter. Does that rhyme? Hey no joking! This is serious. And it is. TV camera guys (and gals) are called shooters. As I mentioned in my paper - Zapruder was a pretty good cameraman. I don't know about two frames combined into one. I think a combined frame is a possibility, however if you go with the years old ( I believe put across by Groden) 313 - from behind; 314 - -nothing; 315 - from the knoll. It's pretty believable that way. Excising frames would create a motion problem with the backround and movements of others in car. I point out over and over in my paper that the continuity of motion is perfect (strong word I know) in frames 313 through 337. I think the trunk lid reflection is good proof of the veracity of Zapruder. I'm surprised more WC supporters haven't jumped on and used my paper as a spingboard for "shots only came from behind". I did get a little of that when I was putting the paper together. As in "yeah, skull fragment flying forward; that because Oswald acted alone". Everybody's got a right, right? The car stopping. How about this? It stopped in peoples minds. That horrible instant. Frozen in you memory. I was at a party once and watched a young lady walk into a sliding glass door. I glanced over at her walking and when she hit the door everything went into slow motiion. It still looks that way in my memory. She was fine. Couple of cuts. Anyhow, I think there's a real good possibility that for a lot of eyewitnesses, the final second of JFK's life is just that - frozen in their minds. Ask them if the limos stopped and they'd be real likely to say "yeah, it stopped.". Other films don't show a stop, Zapruder doesn't show a stop. Is everthing doctored? Secret Service breakdown. Hell yeah. Slowly turning at the sound of a "backfire" or "firecrackers". Notice how they always use(d) those words. Of course nobody wanted to say "I heard a shot." That would rather beg the question "Why didn't you move?" And they didn't. The two on the passenger side of the follow up car turn and look right at Oswald there at the top of the steps of the depoitory. Check Altgens 5, they are NOT looking UP! They are looking straight. Noted in my paper. Anyone want to entertain the possibility that Oswald yelled something? Crazy? Calling attention to himself, at that instant, why? I don't think Oswald was on the sixth floor, but then again, from the time 11:50 or so, to the time of the shooting we really don't know where Oswald was, now do we? Sort of. By the coke machine? Heading to the lunchroom? In the lunchroom? Ever notice how those sighting aren't exactly corroberated. How about letting someone in the back door? Or just unlocking a door? You know, it helps to make your patsy a at least a little bit guilty. Oh darn, I forgot! Posner knows exactly where Oswald was during that half hour. And Posner even mapped his "escape route". Yeah, right. A real chunk of bs that escape route stuff. The Towner film. Wow, talk about a good shooter. This woman panned very smoothly, everything nicely in frame, she has a real good eye. And then she shuts off right as the front porch of TSBD comes into view. Fishy, real fishy. Was she ever interviewed about what she filmed, or thought she filmed? Regardless of what Gary Mack told you about POLAROID TABS, nobody has claimed that the TABS were littered on the ground. For your information, the TAB was attached to the POSITIVE PRINT. What is seen in the grass in the Bothun photo appears to possibly be the NEGATIVE BACKING which is discarded after the tab is used to peel the positive print away from it. The back side is white, and the front side has a paper negative attached, which is a yellowish gray. If the rectangular object is such a backing, it is face down. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 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 ************ Lee: Now we meet again, at missing frames... I have been studying this particular gif...and I believe I am seeing what could be a " now you do Not see it, then a sudden Now you do."...? In reference to the backing.... ....Have a look at the distance all appears to move between these two frames...# 312 & 313....and the suddeness of it.......the head shot also appears what, painted in.?? or is it moi..? .....I know little of film cameras, except for what I have tried to comprehend, through the studies so my marginal knowledge is not reliable.... Perhaps you understand their workings more fully.... or someone who does, could give us a grain from their brain.... .David perhaps?..Jack ???.. Thanks........B Hi Bernice - that graphic I created demonstrates how the background moves. Hence the distance in the background jumps about one foot at a time when you approach z313. The reason for this could be explained as panning, or Zap jiggling, but the Lincoln remains in relatively the same position. So the point I was looking to make was that an object on the grass, where what I believe is the backing from one of Moorman's polaroid photos appears, would suddenly jump into the frame, because the background is suddenly jerking along into view one foot at a time. If you examine the earlier frames, using Moorman herself as the reference point, you can see that the background was advancing inches at a time, prior to the frames leading up to z313. That's the same very basic approach I used to demonstrate missing frames from the Towner film, when it was argued that the film captured 'the entire turn' on to Elm. Again, using all of the information available, it still appears to me that 2 shots to Kennedy's head were combined into one here - mainly be removing frames. There may have also been a strong motivation by the Secret Service to remove the stop seen by numerous witnesses and by individuals that say that they have seen the 'other' film(s), which demonstrated either complicity or incredible incompetence and culpability - a total breakdown and failure of everything that they were trained to do - magnified in only a few frames. And those that have seen the other films [that I have had the opportunity to enquire of] indicated that there was a halt to the Lincoln, that the shot from the rear preceded the shot from the front, and that there was more distance in between the 2 shots than is evident today in the z-film. - lee Hey Lee, how you doin' today? Well you guys started with my post, but you've strayed a bit; that's OK. I agree that the white spot jerks into frame; however, you know I think it's a flying fragment. If you want to believe it's a Polaroid tab, fine, but it wouldn't be Mary Moorman's. A very high level researcher e mailed me a couple of days ago and told me, that Mary told him personnally, that she could account for all her Polaroid tabs when she got back to her car after the assassination. So there you go, wev'e advanced knowledge of the assassination right here on this board! It might be a pull tab but it's not Mary's - I told you she wasn't a litter bug! Of course Zapruder's movements are going to be examined over and over and over. We're stuck with them. You're right on that he 'jerked"; sort of panned back and forth a bit unevenly as the limo came down the street. He steadies up real nice at about frame 300. Ever notice JFK doesn't move at all, I mean at all, for about a full second before 313? I've always found that to be one of the very strange details of the film. And it's absolutely not because somebody painted in the same frame over and over. The light changes, you can see it on his hair. All the motion in that second before 313 looks OK to me, it's just real odd that JFK has no motion. We're lucky; Zapruders a good shooter. Does that rhyme? Hey no joking! This is serious. And it is. TV camera guys (and gals) are called shooters. As I mentioned in my paper - Zapruder was a pretty good cameraman. I don't know about two frames combined into one. I think a combined frame is a possibility, however if you go with the years old ( I believe put across by Groden) 313 - from behind; 314 - -nothing; 315 - from the knoll. It's pretty believable that way. Excising frames would create a motion problem with the backround and movements of others in car. I point out over and over in my paper that the continuity of motion is perfect (strong word I know) in frames 313 through 337. I think the trunk lid reflection is good proof of the veracity of Zapruder. I'm surprised more WC supporters haven't jumped on and used my paper as a spingboard for "shots only came from behind". I did get a little of that when I was putting the paper together. As in "yeah, skull fragment flying forward; that because Oswald acted alone". Everybody's got a right, right? The car stopping. How about this? It stopped in peoples minds. That horrible instant. Frozen in you memory. I was at a party once and watched a young lady walk into a sliding glass door. I glanced over at her walking and when she hit the door everything went into slow motiion. It still looks that way in my memory. She was fine. Couple of cuts. Anyhow, I think there's a real good possibility that for a lot of eyewitnesses, the final second of JFK's life is just that - frozen in their minds. Ask them if the limos stopped and they'd be real likely to say "yeah, it stopped.". Other films don't show a stop, Zapruder doesn't show a stop. Is everthing doctored? Secret Service breakdown. Hell yeah. Slowly turning at the sound of a "backfire" or "firecrackers". Notice how they always use(d) those words. Of course nobody wanted to say "I heard a shot." That would rather beg the question "Why didn't you move?" And they didn't. The two on the passenger side of the follow up car turn and look right at Oswald there at the top of the steps of the depoitory. Check Altgens 5, they are NOT looking UP! They are looking straight. Noted in my paper. Anyone want to entertain the possibility that Oswald yelled something? Crazy? Calling attention to himself, at that instant, why? I don't think Oswald was on the sixth floor, but then again, from the time 11:50 or so, to the time of the shooting we really don't know where Oswald was, now do we? Sort of. By the coke machine? Heading to the lunchroom? In the lunchroom? Ever notice how those sighting aren't exactly corroberated. How about letting someone in the back door? Or just unlocking a door? You know, it helps to make your patsy a at least a little bit guilty. Oh darn, I forgot! Posner knows exactly where Oswald was during that half hour. And Posner even mapped his "escape route". Yeah, right. A real chunk of bs that escape route stuff. The Towner film. Wow, talk about a good shooter. This woman panned very smoothly, everything nicely in frame, she has a real good eye. And then she shuts off right as the front porch of TSBD comes into view. Fishy, real fishy. Was she ever interviewed about what she filmed, or thought she filmed? Regardless of what Gary Mack told you about POLAROID TABS, nobody has claimed that the TABS were littered on the ground. For your information, the TAB was attached to the POSITIVE PRINT. What is seen in the grass in the Bothun photo appears to possibly be the NEGATIVE BACKING which is discarded after the tab is used to peel the positive print away from it. The back side is white, and the front side has a paper negative attached, which is a yellowish gray. If the rectangular object is such a backing, it is face down. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 Hey Frank. My view is of a large conspiracy - I don't see that changing any time soon. It had to do with different reasons on the cover-up, and different groups being involved in the operation. On Moorman - well I don't know her to ask her. If I did, I would present her with the close-up views of what looks like the backing from a Polaroid photo first, and then ask. One exasperating issue with JFK research - allowing someone else to ask the questions. As to the 'evidence' - yes, I believe it was seized and controlled - like everything else. I don't see why photos and films would be exempt when nothing else was [and there is established precedence with the altered backyard photos], but then again, I rejected offers to buy the Brooklyn Bridge when I was only a kid, so maybe it's genetic. As to alteration of the z-film - it's enough for me to learn about the one reference to the 'gorier' version of the film to recognize something is suspect. Back to your thread - CIA Life version of the frame. - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Caramelli Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 Hey Frank.My view is of a large conspiracy - I don't see that changing any time soon. It had to do with different reasons on the cover-up, and different groups being involved in the operation. On Moorman - well I don't know her to ask her. If I did, I would present her with the close-up views of what looks like the backing from a Polaroid photo first, and then ask. One exasperating issue with JFK research - allowing someone else to ask the questions. As to the 'evidence' - yes, I believe it was seized and controlled - like everything else. I don't see why photos and films would be exempt when nothing else was [and there is established precedence with the altered backyard photos], but then again, I rejected offers to buy the Brooklyn Bridge when I was only a kid, so maybe it's genetic. As to alteration of the z-film - it's enough for me to learn about the one reference to the 'gorier' version of the film to recognize something is suspect. Back to your thread - CIA Life version of the frame. - lee Hey, how are you today... I'm sure there was a larger conspiracy in play at the time, but I'm not so sure Dallas was the result of it. I would favor a small, Walker group initiated hit that involved very few people. Some within DPD. For my money, the death of Officer Tippit , the actual shooting of him, and his movements before and just after the assassination, are an area of research that has barely been scratched. And right now forty four years later, if one has the audacity to say Tippit was the grassy knoll shooter, even those who favor more outlandish theories, will bristle. 'Office Tippit, how dare you?' You can hear people say; 'he was an upstanding police officer.' May be true, but as far as I know, his politics were very far right - Birch Society I believe. He was a really good shot too; both rifle and pistol. And he was put down, if you will, about thirty minutes after the assaassination. I think that whole situation looks suspicious. The police car pulling up to Oswalds rooming house, fifteen minutes or so after the assassination. The records of patrol assignments that day still under wraps by DPD. If I'm not mistaken, Dale Myers was somewhat of a 'shooting of Tippit' expert before he departed to the world of misleading graphic representations. It's another topic but wow, was that graphic animation he did a dissapointment. The fatal head shot wasn't delivered from the second floor TSBD! So back to the Tippit possibilities. It just makes one feel a bit blasphomous to say he was involved, but the whole truth of his movements that day just aren't known; and that is supicious in itself. Hope I don't get too beaten up by raising this topic. The Moorman stuff as I said yesterday was given to me direct, by a high level researcher. He didn't post it here, so I'm not saying his name, No big deal really. His standing and credentials are first rate. Yeah, allowing someone to ask the questions and frame the discussion, truly a problem. I've asked many, including you, certainly Jack White, and I mentioned it in my paper. How does one alter a film and have those alterations escape close scutiny? Let me go off on a tangent and give you a bizarre example. I don't know if you are old enough to remember this guy, I remember what he did but not his name. He was a European guy who went around in the early seventies saying he had films of UFOs. Not only films, but he could also conjure up a UFO. I'll give you a minute to stop laughing. This will help. He sold some of the films for huge money. A Japanese TV station gave him something like $250,000 for a showing. Notice I didn't say copy. He never gave out copies back then. They became available in the nineties, I believe. Some of his later works are pretty believable, a hovering disk, against a mountainous backdrop, that arcs into the distance and then disappears, not bad. His earlier stuff was interesting. Watching a couple of them now it looks like he took a bumble bee or maybe even house fly and wrapped it up in something like paper mache'; where the bug could still fly but was enclosed in a little colored disk. The hovering motion against say, a city skyline was again very believable, but the hovering, upon repeated viewing, was very insectlike. Key word - repeated. This guy never let people have repeated viewings. He only showed his stuff on TV stations and then kept it under wraps. And he never let anyone else examine his films. So he scammed the world, and disappeared back to Norway or wherever. You know what he never anticapated? That his stuff would be marketed and available down at the local video store. He probably never anticapated any such thing as a local video store. Know what you see when you frame advance through his footage? How about glue drips? Obvious tape (as in adhesive/splicing) splices. Fingerprints! The guys hoax became easily evident when one got those films in hand. My point? At play speed his stuff was believable; upon close examionation, not even close. As I said in my paper, in communications with other researchers, and on this board; how does one alter a film and keep the changes hidden when that film is closely examined? Dubbing down is not the answer. If Zapruder has had frames taken out , added in, spray of blood reduced, bystanders inserted etc. etc.; they did all this and wound up with a seamless final copy? And none, not one, of the changes could be seen on close examination? And I don't mean a blue (developing) wash at the edges, that is just a result of a new copy. I mean something like the edge(s) of an in-frame insert. Or removed frames that don't disrupt the backround and continuity of motion? I'll say it again - at play speed, you get away with it. (Believe me, I'm an editor!) Upon close examination, easily seen. I have myself looked for kinks in Zapruder. There is testimony from eyewitnesses that would indicate the fatal head shot actually occurred later, further down the street. I remember a few years back, hurrrying to work to take a look at the limousine behind the freeway sign, anticapating seeing a spot where a cut could be made and the following seconds "backed up" if you will. This would also involve a horizontal spice. Not easy, but with the right gear you can do it. Guess what? The limo never fully disappears behind the freeway sign. You can always see one end or the other of it. Nix that idea. The master alterationists would never have a frame to "get in on". Hence, no go on that one. Point out what you think is a change in Zapruder. I'll check it out. Remember, I'm an eyes only guy. Measurement, photogeommentry, mathematics, that stuff always relates back to what we are seeing. Evidence siezed, and photos and films being a part of that? 100% agreement here. And first and foremost as well. An old collegue of mine was in Dallas that day, with WFAA. They got word to go to the hospital. They arrrived in time to get a shot of JFK being brought in on a stretcher. They tried to hide the reel from Secret Service. It didn't work, Secret Service said "ALL you reels, let's have 'em"! Gotta run now. Fill me in on the references to a gorier version. I've only vaguely heard that one. All the best Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 (edited) Hey Frank.My view is of a large conspiracy - I don't see that changing any time soon. It had to do with different reasons on the cover-up, and different groups being involved in the operation. On Moorman - well I don't know her to ask her. If I did, I would present her with the close-up views of what looks like the backing from a Polaroid photo first, and then ask. One exasperating issue with JFK research - allowing someone else to ask the questions. As to the 'evidence' - yes, I believe it was seized and controlled - like everything else. I don't see why photos and films would be exempt when nothing else was [and there is established precedence with the altered backyard photos], but then again, I rejected offers to buy the Brooklyn Bridge when I was only a kid, so maybe it's genetic. As to alteration of the z-film - it's enough for me to learn about the one reference to the 'gorier' version of the film to recognize something is suspect. Back to your thread - CIA Life version of the frame. - lee Hey, how are you today... I'm sure there was a larger conspiracy in play at the time, but I'm not so sure Dallas was the result of it. I would favor a small, Walker group initiated hit that involved very few people. Some within DPD. For my money, the death of Officer Tippit , the actual shooting of him, and his movements before and just after the assassination, are an area of research that has barely been scratched. And right now forty four years later, if one has the audacity to say Tippit was the grassy knoll shooter, even those who favor more outlandish theories, will bristle. 'Office Tippit, how dare you?' You can hear people say; 'he was an upstanding police officer.' May be true, but as far as I know, his politics were very far right - Birch Society I believe. He was a really good shot too; both rifle and pistol. And he was put down, if you will, about thirty minutes after the assaassination. I think that whole situation looks suspicious. The police car pulling up to Oswalds rooming house, fifteen minutes or so after the assassination. The records of patrol assignments that day still under wraps by DPD. If I'm not mistaken, Dale Myers was somewhat of a 'shooting of Tippit' expert before he departed to the world of misleading graphic representations. It's another topic but wow, was that graphic animation he did a dissapointment. The fatal head shot wasn't delivered from the second floor TSBD! So back to the Tippit possibilities. It just makes one feel a bit blasphomous to say he was involved, but the whole truth of his movements that day just aren't known; and that is supicious in itself. Hope I don't get too beaten up by raising this topic. The Moorman stuff as I said yesterday was given to me direct, by a high level researcher. He didn't post it here, so I'm not saying his name, No big deal really. His standing and credentials are first rate. Yeah, allowing someone to ask the questions and frame the discussion, truly a problem. I've asked many, including you, certainly Jack White, and I mentioned it in my paper. How does one alter a film and have those alterations escape close scutiny? Let me go off on a tangent and give you a bizarre example. I don't know if you are old enough to remember this guy, I remember what he did but not his name. He was a European guy who went around in the early seventies saying he had films of UFOs. Not only films, but he could also conjure up a UFO. I'll give you a minute to stop laughing. This will help. He sold some of the films for huge money. A Japanese TV station gave him something like $250,000 for a showing. Notice I didn't say copy. He never gave out copies back then. They became available in the nineties, I believe. Some of his later works are pretty believable, a hovering disk, against a mountainous backdrop, that arcs into the distance and then disappears, not bad. His earlier stuff was interesting. Watching a couple of them now it looks like he took a bumble bee or maybe even house fly and wrapped it up in something like paper mache'; where the bug could still fly but was enclosed in a little colored disk. The hovering motion against say, a city skyline was again very believable, but the hovering, upon repeated viewing, was very insectlike. Key word - repeated. This guy never let people have repeated viewings. He only showed his stuff on TV stations and then kept it under wraps. And he never let anyone else examine his films. So he scammed the world, and disappeared back to Norway or wherever. You know what he never anticapated? That his stuff would be marketed and available down at the local video store. He probably never anticapated any such thing as a local video store. Know what you see when you frame advance through his footage? How about glue drips? Obvious tape (as in adhesive/splicing) splices. Fingerprints! The guys hoax became easily evident when one got those films in hand. My point? At play speed his stuff was believable; upon close examionation, not even close. As I said in my paper, in communications with other researchers, and on this board; how does one alter a film and keep the changes hidden when that film is closely examined? Dubbing down is not the answer. If Zapruder has had frames taken out , added in, spray of blood reduced, bystanders inserted etc. etc.; they did all this and wound up with a seamless final copy? And none, not one, of the changes could be seen on close examination? And I don't mean a blue (developing) wash at the edges, that is just a result of a new copy. I mean something like the edge(s) of an in-frame insert. Or removed frames that don't disrupt the backround and continuity of motion? I'll say it again - at play speed, you get away with it. (Believe me, I'm an editor!) Upon close examination, easily seen. I have myself looked for kinks in Zapruder. There is testimony from eyewitnesses that would indicate the fatal head shot actually occurred later, further down the street. I remember a few years back, hurrrying to work to take a look at the limousine behind the freeway sign, anticapating seeing a spot where a cut could be made and the following seconds "backed up" if you will. This would also involve a horizontal spice. Not easy, but with the right gear you can do it. Guess what? The limo never fully disappears behind the freeway sign. You can always see one end or the other of it. Nix that idea. The master alterationists would never have a frame to "get in on". Hence, no go on that one. Point out what you think is a change in Zapruder. I'll check it out. Remember, I'm an eyes only guy. Measurement, photogeommentry, mathematics, that stuff always relates back to what we are seeing. Evidence siezed, and photos and films being a part of that? 100% agreement here. And first and foremost as well. An old collegue of mine was in Dallas that day, with WFAA. They got word to go to the hospital. They arrrived in time to get a shot of JFK being brought in on a stretcher. They tried to hide the reel from Secret Service. It didn't work, Secret Service said "ALL you reels, let's have 'em"! Gotta run now. Fill me in on the references to a gorier version. I've only vaguely heard that one. All the best Frank Frank - man I have to say I really think you have the makings of someone who will produce something really significant. Keep the mind open and keep reading. As opposed to books - I would heartily recommend reading through postings made here on this forum. I can find the reference to the gory version - need to dig for it. In the meanwhile, and I truly mean no offense, here's something to consider. The very flat white object that appears on the grass is there when we see the 'cone' simultaneously shooting up into space. It can't be related - there's no time. We are dealing with 18fps here - no matter what I may say about the film or anyone else. Even if frames were removed, as I believe they were - to create one single headshot out of two, and to cover the horrific result of - sorry words can't express - wish I could turn to fouler language here - the stain that History should have recorded on the SS with respect to the major screw-up on Greer's part with him braking the limo and turning to look at Kennedy. Even with an earlier shot to the rear within 9 frames earlier than z313, that's half a second. Anyway - last post on this thread for me [aside from the Gory comment - which I need to find], but I hope you will continue working on some other stuff aside from this theory. Feel free to contact me anytime if I can be of assistance. BTW - here's 2 CIA Time Life scans I did for you. The shiny area at Altgens left foot is interesting. On Tippit - he was nowhere near DP at the time. I have no respect for Dale Myers, so I will not comment further. Keep up the good work and keep on digging. - lee Edited December 15, 2007 by Lee Forman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 (edited) Delete...... Edited December 15, 2007 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 (edited) 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 ************ Lee: Now we meet again, at missing frames... I have been studying this particular gif...and I believe I am seeing what could be a " now you do Not see it, then a sudden Now you do."...? In reference to the backing.... ....Have a look at the distance all appears to move between these two frames...# 312 & 313....and the suddeness of it.......the head shot also appears what, painted in.?? or is it moi..? .....I know little of film cameras, except for what I have tried to comprehend, through the studies so my marginal knowledge is not reliable.... Perhaps you understand their workings more fully.... or someone who does, could give us a grain from their brain.... .David perhaps?..Jack ???.. Thanks........B Bernice, since we know the Zappy film is a crappy fake, I no longer study anything in it. Nothing is real. Why waste time? Jack ********************* Right Jack..... I put it away a long time ago, but every now and again it has a habit of popping up.... I am trying to figure out, with very little knowledge of cameras, if this was possible, to suddenly appear as the backing did in the Gif I posted ,or it is another sign of cut frames...... Thanks..... Frank : Below I do believe the paper backing in Bothun...... B... Edited December 15, 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