Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mary Moorman Photo


William Kelly
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Are there different versions (copies?) of the Mary Moorman photo showing different things?

Thanks,

BK

Hi Bill.

There are MANY versions of the Moorman photo, to my eyes they all seem to show the same thing.

The only difference to me is that some have the "fingerprin"t and some don't

My Moorman Gallery

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...ls.php?album=11

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is whether there are different copies of the photo, first generation, second generation?

How did the fingerprint get on there?

Also, Poloroid is famous for deteriating quickly.

Are there earlier copies before the fingerprint?

Thanks to anyone who knows and responds.

BK

The Zippo copy is the only one without the thumbprint.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is whether there are different copies of the photo, first generation, second generation?

How did the fingerprint get on there?

Also, Poloroid is famous for deteriating quickly.

Are there earlier copies before the fingerprint?

Thanks to anyone who knows and responds.

BK

The Zippo copy is the only one without the thumbprint.

Jack

Surely the Zippo copy as it is commonly known, can't technically be classed as a copy. It is only a photograph which shows the Moorman photograph beside a Zippo lighter.

zippo.jpg

Duncan

Nothing technical Duncan. The dictionary says:

v. cop·ied, cop·y·ing, cop·ies

v.tr.

1. To make a reproduction or copy of.

The Zippo print is a reproduction or copy of the Moorman original.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jack.

Do you know the story behind the thumbprint. ?

Something to do with having to apply a "fixing agent" to the photo's as they came out of the camera in 1963. ?

Yes, Robin. I had one of the very first Polaroids. Prints were brownish and quickly faded in sunlight.

Dr. Land quickly came out with a remedy...a little BOTTLE OF FIX with each roll of film. It had inside a

plastic handle and felt "coater"; the print was to be placed on a flat surface and wiped with the "coater"

which was a combination photo fix and sealant, which made the print "permanent". Moorman 5 was

never coated, but put into the pocket of Mary or Jean. I have always assumed the thumbprint belonged

to Jim Featherston, who was first to look at the still unfixed print; being unfamiliar with Polaroid prints,

he grasped it between his thumb and forefinger, and the skin acid eventually eroded the emulsion.

I have had the same thing happen by people who did not know to hold the print by the edges.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jack.

Do you know the story behind the thumbprint. ?

Something to do with having to apply a "fixing agent" to the photo's as they came out of the camera in 1963. ?

Yes, Robin. I had one of the very first Polaroids. Prints were brownish and quickly faded in sunlight.

Dr. Land quickly came out with a remedy...a little BOTTLE OF FIX with each roll of film. It had inside a

plastic handle and felt "coater"; the print was to be placed on a flat surface and wiped with the "coater"

which was a combination photo fix and sealant, which made the print "permanent". Moorman 5 was

never coated, but put into the pocket of Mary or Jean. I have always assumed the thumbprint belonged

to Jim Featherston, who was first to look at the still unfixed print; being unfamiliar with Polaroid prints,

he grasped it between his thumb and forefinger, and the skin acid eventually eroded the emulsion.

I have had the same thing happen by people who did not know to hold the print by the edges.

Jack

So the photo of the picture next to the lighter was taken before it was touched?

And since the fingerprint is so pronounced, why can't it be positively identified?

And are there early, first generation copies of the photo without the print that show more than those copies made later?

Thanks,

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jack.

Do you know the story behind the thumbprint. ?

Something to do with having to apply a "fixing agent" to the photo's as they came out of the camera in 1963. ?

Yes, Robin. I had one of the very first Polaroids. Prints were brownish and quickly faded in sunlight.

Dr. Land quickly came out with a remedy...a little BOTTLE OF FIX with each roll of film. It had inside a

plastic handle and felt "coater"; the print was to be placed on a flat surface and wiped with the "coater"

which was a combination photo fix and sealant, which made the print "permanent". Moorman 5 was

never coated, but put into the pocket of Mary or Jean. I have always assumed the thumbprint belonged

to Jim Featherston, who was first to look at the still unfixed print; being unfamiliar with Polaroid prints,

he grasped it between his thumb and forefinger, and the skin acid eventually eroded the emulsion.

I have had the same thing happen by people who did not know to hold the print by the edges.

Jack

So the photo of the picture next to the lighter was taken before it was touched?

And since the fingerprint is so pronounced, why can't it be positively identified?

And are there early, first generation copies of the photo without the print that show more than those copies made later?

Thanks,

BK

No, Bill...It would take a week or more for the thumbprint to show up. It was made when

the emulsion was still damp.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jack.

Do you know the story behind the thumbprint. ?

Something to do with having to apply a "fixing agent" to the photo's as they came out of the camera in 1963. ?

Yes, Robin. I had one of the very first Polaroids. Prints were brownish and quickly faded in sunlight.

Dr. Land quickly came out with a remedy...a little BOTTLE OF FIX with each roll of film. It had inside a

plastic handle and felt "coater"; the print was to be placed on a flat surface and wiped with the "coater"

which was a combination photo fix and sealant, which made the print "permanent". Moorman 5 was

never coated, but put into the pocket of Mary or Jean. I have always assumed the thumbprint belonged

to Jim Featherston, who was first to look at the still unfixed print; being unfamiliar with Polaroid prints,

he grasped it between his thumb and forefinger, and the skin acid eventually eroded the emulsion.

I have had the same thing happen by people who did not know to hold the print by the edges.

Jack

Thanks Jack.

I agree that it was probably Jim Featherston.

I was looking at this photo last night and was thinking exactly the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jack.

Do you know the story behind the thumbprint. ?

Something to do with having to apply a "fixing agent" to the photo's as they came out of the camera in 1963. ?

Yes, Robin. I had one of the very first Polaroids. Prints were brownish and quickly faded in sunlight.

Dr. Land quickly came out with a remedy...a little BOTTLE OF FIX with each roll of film. It had inside a

plastic handle and felt "coater"; the print was to be placed on a flat surface and wiped with the "coater"

which was a combination photo fix and sealant, which made the print "permanent". Moorman 5 was

never coated, but put into the pocket of Mary or Jean. I have always assumed the thumbprint belonged

to Jim Featherston, who was first to look at the still unfixed print; being unfamiliar with Polaroid prints,

he grasped it between his thumb and forefinger, and the skin acid eventually eroded the emulsion.

I have had the same thing happen by people who did not know to hold the print by the edges.

Jack

So the photo of the picture next to the lighter was taken before it was touched?

And since the fingerprint is so pronounced, why can't it be positively identified?

And are there early, first generation copies of the photo without the print that show more than those copies made later?

Thanks,

BK

No, Bill...It would take a week or more for the thumbprint to show up. It was made when

the emulsion was still damp.

Jack

Wrong Jack, the thumbprint is visable in all copies of the Moorman, including the zippo.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research...t=1&dir=asc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is whether there are different copies of the photo, first generation, second generation?

How did the fingerprint get on there?

Also, Poloroid is famous for deteriating quickly.

Are there earlier copies before the fingerprint?

Thanks to anyone who knows and responds.

BK

The Zippo copy is the only one without the thumbprint having etched away most of the

emulsion, although parts of the print are beginning to appear. But the Zippo shows

the parts not seen in later copies.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is whether there are different copies of the photo, first generation, second generation?

How did the fingerprint get on there?

Also, Poloroid is famous for deteriating quickly.

Are there earlier copies before the fingerprint?

Thanks to anyone who knows and responds.

BK

The Zippo copy is the only one without the thumbprint having etched away most of the

emulsion, although parts of the print are beginning to appear. But the Zippo shows

the parts not seen in later copies.

Jack

Wrong once again.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research...=20&dir=asc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing technical Duncan. The dictionary says:

v. cop·ied, cop·y·ing, cop·ies

v.tr.

1. To make a reproduction or copy of.

The Zippo print is a reproduction or copy of the Moorman original.

Jack

Be careful Jack ... Duncan seemingly doesn't like dictionary definitions because when reviewed they add clarity to the meanings of the text written.

On another note: You once said that only the Drum Scan shows the gap between the pedestal and the colonnade window in the background and yet every copy I have seen shows the same gap. Is there any chance that you could tell me what Moorman print shows a closed gap like your re-creation photo did in the 'Moorman in the Street' debate?

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...