Mary Moorman, age 78, to speak on JFK assassination

[David Von Pein]

I agree, Pat Speer. Mary Moorman could have blasted the lying Jean Hill much, much more than she did in her May 24th interview, but instead she kept her lip buttoned (for the most part). I commend Mary Ann for being as restrained as she was during her iAntique.com interview with regard to Jean Lollis Hill.

Edited May 29, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Todd W. Vaughan]

I agree, Pat Speer. Mary Moorman could have blasted the lying Jean Hill much, much more than she did in her May 24th interview, but instead she kept her lip buttoned (for the most part). I commend Mary Ann for being as restrained as she was during her iAntique.com interview with regard to Jean Lollis Hill.

Jean Hill saw a gunman behind the fence fire the shot that killed JFK, then ran across the street chasing him, but then didn't have the guts to say anything about it an hour later on WFAA TV?

Yeah, right. What a xxxx.

[Pat Speer]

I agree, Pat Speer. Mary Moorman could have blasted the lying Jean Hill much, much more than she did in her May 24th interview, but instead she kept her lip buttoned (for the most part). I commend Mary Ann for being as restrained as she was during her iAntique.com interview with regard to Jean Lollis Hill.

Jean Hill saw a gunman behind the fence fire the shot that killed JFK, then ran across the street chasing him, but then didn't have the guts to say anything about it an hour later on WFAA TV?

Yeah, right. What a xxxx.

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that. The stories of most every witness changed over the weeks, months, and years. Some, like Hill and Howard Brennan, may have been simply more imaginative than the others. Outside of Charles Givens, I personally doubt many of them "lied," at least consciously.

Which brings me to a semi-related question... At one point I discussed the nature of lying with John McAdams, and he admitted that he wouldn't consider any of the prime LN witnesses or experts "liars" because they wouldn't "need" to lie, while someone like Garrison would. I consider this one of the most jaw-droppingly irrational statements ever. Would you agree? With him or me?

Is there a separate criteria for witnesses or proponents for the LN position, vs. witnesses or proponents for the CT position, or not?

And, if so, what witnesses helpful to the LN position were or are "liars," in your opinion?

Just seeing where you stand... I don't pretend to hide that I'm nearly as interested in the way the assassination and its aftermath has affected people's thought patterns as I am in what really happened. I find it fascinating. I also find you one of the more rational people to study the case. Which is why I wonder if even you are affected by what I might call "McAdams-itis," the tendency to think someone like Oliver Stone a xxxx, but Gerald Posner not a xxxx, even if it can be shown they take similar liberties with the truth.

[Jim Phelps]

I suppose everyone has noticed the Moorman interview has her telling she was standing on the grass and not the road for the JFK head shot time frame picture.

That pretty well shoots down all those folks out in Dealey Plaza with LASERs and bad analytical processes, pseudo science, trying to in correctly claim she was standing in the road, in order to attempt to claim the Zapruder film is all fake.

Now, they have Moorman's witness to the day supporting what Zapruder's camera lense filmed was correct.

http://wewantinformation.com/video/mary-moorman-breaks-her-silence-iantique-com-interview/

================

It has been suggested that all these psuedo science Zapruder is Fake folks will soon have to write a new book called:

"Why I was Wrong About the Zapruder Film".

===========

Edited May 31, 2011 by Jim Phelps