Simple proof that the Zapruder film is 100% Authentic!

[Dan O'meara]

It is my honest opinion that the object highlighted by the arrow in the clip below is a piece of JFK's skull, and not a rose. I've analysed this piece of film so many times before and was quite shocked when Steve Barber pointed the object out.
To me, it is an object rotating as it falls to the limo floor. It is triangular(ish) in shape, has flat sides and edges. It is a reddish-pink colour rather than the deep red of the roses.



John posted this clip, which appears to show a large piece of JFK's skull being blown towards the area we see the object pointed out by Steve Barber rotating and falling below the edge of the door.



The bottom line is this - if the object is indeed a piece of skull them it must have been found in the limo as we see it falling to the limo floor. And this is indeed the case, although as with nearly everything in this case, there is a certain amount of confusion about who found it, what it consistent is that a piece of skull, measuring approximately 10 x 6.5 cm was found on the floor in the back of the limo.

Paul Seaton deals thoroughly with this matter at https://paulseaton.com/jfk/frags/bounce.htm

There can be very little doubt that the large piece of triangular(ish) shaped skull discovered in the back of the limo is what is being shown in the above clips from the Z-film.
As Seaton notes, both the triangular piece and the Harper fragment are blown forward. Yet another piece of confirmation that the head-shot came from behind.

[Steve Barber]

After two head shots how much head would be left?

JohnM

BINGO!!!!! 

[John Mytton]

Hi John, I meant a video clip, close-up and your usual high quality, from the moment of the headshot to the moment after the piece of skull has rotated out of view.

I'd do it myself but my video suite is down at the moment.

Thanks in advance

This video isn't stabilized and as good as Steve's Gif but does show the timing of the ejection to when the "rose" tumbled down the inside of the car.



JohnM

[Dan O'meara]

This video isn't stabilized and as good as Steve's Gif but does show the timing of the ejection to when the "rose" tumbled down the inside of the car.



JohnM

Thanks John.
The piece of skull appears to be blown precisely to where we see the rotating object.
It is immensely frustrating that at the moment of the head-shot the edge of the limo door is below the film frame as the full movement of the piece of skull can't be tracked.
However, it does appear that this piece is fired out of JFK's head at tremendous speed and then bounces upwards before falling down (although it is difficult to be sure of this)
This piece of skull can only be the large triangular piece taken to Bethseda about midnight with two other pieces, all of which were found in the limo.
Forensic Anthropologist, J. Lawrence Angel, placed this piece of bone at the front of JFK's head (No. 1 in the pic below):

[Dan O'meara]

  What's this??  You mean you are unaware of the fact that Mark Lane heavily edited out details regarding the details Brehm gave Lane about what he witnessed that day?!  You are completely unaware that the transcripts of the interviews of the people Lane interviewed are complete and unedited and housed in Wisconsin at the Wisconsin Historical Society?   Mr. Brehm's complete, unedited interview on transcript is labeled:  "USMss, 117AN “Rush to Judgment” Box 60, Folder 1" . The entire story about the "Whatever it was" that he saw which he himself never said was a piece of "skull", according to what he says in the unedited interview.  Many of Mr. Brehm's actions and observations were edited out of the film, conveniently, because he points out that what he thought he saw -HE did not identify as a piece of skull--Seymour Weitzman did when it was found in the street-and Lane mentioned Weitzman because Brehm said that he himself would never have been able to identify it as a piece of skull.  You'd better get busy and write the WHS and ask for a copy of Mr. Brehm's unedited  and complete interview with Lane. Then you'll realize what a shyster Lane was, and why Mr. Brehm blasted Lane during his appearance in 1967 on the CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report, saying that Lane took great liberties at adding to his quotation, and that he positively identified the object as a piece of skull, when he did no such thing!  Look the place up on the Internet, and while you're at it, ask for a copy of Lee Bowers' complete and unedited interview, and see how Lane did the same thing to Bowers by editing out things Bowers said regarding the men and the stockade fence.  Brehm also did not say that the "whatever it was" landed near where he stood. 

 So, in answer to your question, no, I do not believe in the tooth fairy, nor do I believe anything Mark Lane had to say when it comes to Chuck Brehm or Lee Bowers, and what they observed on 11/22/1963. 

 I also believe that you should actually be asking yourself if you believe in the tooth fairy.   Anyone who believes that two bullets struck JFK in the head from two  different directions and then believe that most of the head would still be intact...well, lets just say that you don't know the first thing about ballistics or forensics.

Hi Steve, I've always assumed the piece of skull Weitzman was referring to was the Harper Fragment but it clearly isn't. The Harper was found the next day, the three pieces of skull found in the limo (including the large triangular piece) was taken to Bethseda that night.
I don't know what happened to the piece of skull Weitzman found that day:

Mr. Weitzman: Yes, sir; other officers, Secret Service as well, and somebody started, there was something red in the street and I went back over the wall and somebody brought me a piece of what he thought to be a firecracker and it turned out to be, I believe, I wouldn't quote this, but I turned it over to one of the Secret Service men and I told them it should go to the lab because it looked to me like human bone. I later found out it was supposedly a portion of the President's skull.
Mr. Ball: That you picked up off the street?
Mr. Weitzman: Yes.
Mr. Ball: What part of the street did you pick this up?
Mr. Weitzman: As the President's car was going off, it would be on the left-hand side of the street. It would be the----
Mr. Ball: The left-hand side facing----
Mr. Weitzman: That would be the south side of the street.
Mr. Ball: It was on the south side of the street. Was it in the street?
Mr. Weitzman: It was in the street itself.
Mr. Ball: On the pavement?
Mr. Weitzman: Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball: Anywhere near the curb?
Mr. Weitzman: Approximately, oh, I would say 8 to 12 inches from the curb, something like that.
Mr. Ball: Off the record.
(Off record discussion.)

[John Mytton]

   Unless I clicked on something wrong, I was responding to what you said to me on page 8, post #8 from the top, by yourself.

I wouldn't worry about it, there was a time on this Forum when odd sentences or phrases would be substituted for certain words. And what was added is hardly a reason to alert the authorities, but I guess when the CT's arguments are as weak as piss, then they will resort to almost anything to gain an advantage.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

I wouldn't worry about it, there was a time on this Forum when odd sentences or phrases would be substituted for certain words. And what was added is hardly a reason to alert the authorities, but I guess when the CT's arguments are as weak as piss, then they will resort to almost anything to gain an advantage.

JohnM

You seem to be familiar with this kind of behavior. Why is that?

[Dan O'meara]

   Unless I clicked on something wrong, I was responding to what you said to me on page 8, post #8 from the top, by yourself.

You've just not added the quote symbols when you responded.
It happens all the time.

Only a truly spineless f%ckwit would report such a thing.