In Film Posted at NARA, Moorman Says She Was "in the street"

[Josiah Thompson]

I should have been clearer, David. By "all the cycles," I meant the two cycles that would have hit Moorman if she were standing in the street or would have had to take dramatic evasive action. No one saw Martin or Hargis do this. Secondly, the reason you don't see Hargis stop his cycle in the Zapruder film is pretty obvious. As he slows, he fades out of frame on the left side behind the limousine. Of course, he wouldn't be shown doing this in the Zapruder film.

The Moorman photo itself shows her looking down on Martin and Hargis. Hence, the internal evidence of the Moorman photo matches what we see in the Zapruder, Muchmore, Nix and possibly another film that I've forgotten. Surely, you don't want to argue that all these films have been altered to place Mary Moorman in the grass when she was standing in the street. And why do this??

"To conceal the limousine stop," you say. This is incredibly risky... one might even say, stupid. Why? Because when the tourist from Topeka shows up with his movie film of the limousine stopping all your antics are exposed. In short, the balloon goes up. This is something that few people of the "alterationist" perspective are willing to conjure with. I believe Jack White and perhaps Professor Fetzer have announced that all the Dealey Plaza films and photos have been altered (even those that never were in government hands). However, anyone trying to pull off such a stunt could never know he had all the films.

The logic of the situation runs like this: (1) You can't alter just one film or it's discrepancy with all the others would be readily discoverable. (2) You must try to alter all the films. (3) You can never know that you've done this. (4) Therefore, trying to alter any or all of the films from Dealey Plaza is a silly thing to try.

Do you agree, David? I'm curious.

JT

JT

[snip]

If you go to the CBS show DSL has given the link to, you will find that Moorman is only interviewed for a very short time... a number of seconds. I did my time with Dan Rather over several CBS shows and the problem is CBS controls the cuts. I was appalled a couple of times when I saw how CBS cut what I said. The same probably applies here to Mary Moorman. We have no idea what she said, say, a minute and one-half later, that was left on the cutting room floor.

(2) [snip] No witness saw the motorcyclists do anything but what the photos and films showed they did... cruise down Elm Street right by the south curb.

JT

I'm writing this post primarily to address statement number (2)--above--but first, let me address these comments about Moorman.

First of all, I thoroughly disagree with the notion that the film clip I cited is not adequate to make a very firm judgement as to what Mary Moorman said. Its right there on camera. She says she stepped into the street, and even points to the street. Theorizing about what may have been left on the cutting room floor will not change these facts.

Whether she actually took her picture when she was standing in the street is another matter. What concerns me the most is that she repeatedly said she was standing in the street, and the Z film does not show her there.

Let's now turn to point (2). The statement there is simply incorrect--i.e., the notion that all the cycles are shown to "cruise down Elm Street right by the south curb."

First of all, the Nix film --particularly the Enhanced Nix Film (on YouTube)--provides a plethora of evidence that at least three of the cyclists stopped.

Jackson and Cheney are on the right hand side, and the Enhanced Nix shows them stopped. It happens quickly. And you have to watch carefully when Nix pans to the right. (You see Cheney turning his head to the right).

Also , on the left hand side of JFK’s car, you see Hargis stopping (and that movement is quick, because Nix pans to the left)

More specifically, re Hargis:

Hargis completely stopped his cycle, AND put the kickstand down, AND then ran over to the light pole (as shown in frames from the Bell film). AND then he ran back to his cycle, remounted, and scooted off towards the Underpass.

Interviews conducted by one researcher, years ago, with Malcolm Summers (who is shown falling in the Z film) indicate that Hargis cycle actually tipped over, and that he had to then place it rightside up, before leaving it, in the street, and running over to the light pole. Other films show Hargis' cycle upright, and simply standing there (upright) with the kickstand down, as Hargis is about to leave it (and/or has already left it) and run towards the light pole (see Darnell's film).

None of this is shown on the Z film.

Anyway, my point is that not ONLY are there cycle cops who SAY that they stopped, but that the films show that Hargis left his cycle, upright, and went over to the north curb, stood there, looked up at the monument area, and then returned to his cycle.

So the statement that all the cycles simply "cruise[d] down Elm Street right by the south curb" is simply incorrect.

DSL

7/1/11; 6:50 PM PDT

Los Angeles, CA

[Chuck Robbins]

Just so much smoke

The Zapruder Film's witness is still as Solid as the Rock of Gibralta. The motorcycle windshield height information solidly impeached all issue of Moorman standing in the street for the head shots time frame Polaroid Photo. Moorman also recently said she was on the grass. Doubly impeaching the claim.

Everyone recognizes that all the questioning was leading and devisive for the cover up of the JFK assassination and attempting to shoe horn everything into 3 shots, TSBD, and LHO.

It became even worse with the Warren Commission's efforts.

The real issues were that Jean Hill reported seeing Jack Ruby running toward the Grassy Knoll and she heard shot coming from Grassy Knoll. So, they aggrivated the stuffings out of her to try and make her change her story.

Hooking up Ruby was a sure formula for disaster as he quickly links back to Chicago and Ruby's Drug dealing there and the Bronfman Drug dealings and Morty Bloomfield. Ruby even changes his name to avoid such an obvious association when he moved to Dallas.

All the rest is just so much noise to avoid that association.

She also said "I thought I saw some men in plain clothes shooting back but everything was such a blur and Mary was pulling on my leg saying "Get down thery [sic] are shooting""

I have always thought that it was really strange that her statement about the plain clothes men "shooting back" did not get the attention it (IMO) should have. Questions like- Where were these men located? What exactly does "shooting back" mean? Shooting back towards where, or whom?

The "firecracker" sound she heard, which she has described as coming from "in the car" has always, in my mind, been linked to the men "shooting back". Just my unprovable two cents worth since we are already slightly off-topic here.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

What concerns me the most is that she repeatedly said she was standing in the street, and the Z film does not show her there.

David: I make no claim to photo expertise, but I do claim to have acquired a bit of critical common sense over the years.

If Moorman was in fact in the street and if that fact appeared in the original Zfilm,

I can think of absolutely NO REASON why the plotters would want or need

to edit that out. Whatever things they wanted to change or obscure,

Moorman in the street was surely not one of them. From the plotters point of view

what difference could it make whether Moorman was in the street or on the grass?

It seems reasonable to assume that film forgers

would only alter those parts that contradicted what they wanted people to believe,

and I cannot imagine why Moorman in the street would be one of them.

I am sure the plotters knew the old Will Rogers dictum:

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

P.S. I seriously doubt that Moorman was focusing her mind on exactly where her own feet were

while she was photographing the president.

[Daniel Gallup]

What concerns me the most is that she repeatedly said she was standing in the street, and the Z film does not show her there.

David: I make no claim to photo expertise, but I do claim to have acquired a bit of critical common sense over the years.

If Moorman was in fact in the street and if that fact appeared in the original Zfilm,

I can think of absolutely NO REASON why the plotters would want or need

to edit that out. Whatever things they wanted to change or obscure,

Moorman in the street was surely not one of them. From the plotters point of view

what difference could it make whether Moorman was in the street or on the grass?

It seems reasonable to assume that film forgers

would only alter those parts that contradicted what they wanted people to believe,

and I cannot imagine why Moorman in the street would be one of them.

I am sure the plotters knew the old Will Rogers dictum:

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

P.S. I seriously doubt that Moorman was focusing her mind on exactly where her own feet were

while she was photographing the president.

Raymond, I would reply that you are correct that Moorman in the street vs. grass in and of itself was irrelevant to the forgers. What was relevant was the limo stop and whatever was going on in the car around that time, the most important of which would be a massive amount of blood and brains exiting the back of Kennedy's head to the rear and left, indicating a shot from the front. Now if Moorman was in the street during the limo stop, that would have to go along with the stop. But what to put in its place? Moorman in the grass, where she indoubtedly also was. Ok-- just a guess on my part, and maybe not a good one. I am trying to understand, if possible, all such anomalies as Moorman's claims in light of an excised limo stop. Can't say I didn't try. Best, Daniel

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Now if Moorman was in the street during the limo stop, that would have to go along with the stop.

Greetings Daniel: I will leave that for the experts here to comment on but, as a layman, I cannot see

why the plotters would need to take Moorman off the street and put her on the grass in order to edit out a limo stop.

[Jim Phelps]

Ditto on Carroll's comments. Highly logical.

Edited July 4, 2011 by Jim Phelps

[Daniel Gallup]

Now if Moorman was in the street during the limo stop, that would have to go along with the stop.

Greetings Daniel: I will leave that for the experts here to comment on but, as a layman, I cannot see

why the plotters would need to take Moorman off the street and put her on the grass in order to edit out a limo stop.

If she was in the street during the limo stop, that would automatically be removed. If she was on the grass before the limo stop, then that would have to be preserved.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

If she was in the street during the limo stop, that would automatically be removed. If she was on the grass before the limo stop, then that would have to be preserved.

I am willing to believe you Daniel, if you can demonstrate

that your opinion has some scientific basis.

And I sincerely hope you can,

because I just received in the mail

ANOTHER one of those pesky digital summonses

which shows me driving through ANOTHER red light.

So I badly need an expert

to prove that the two separate digital images of my car

are clever forgeries.

[Daniel Gallup]

If she was in the street during the limo stop, that would automatically be removed. If she was on the grass before the limo stop, then that would have to be preserved.

I am willing to believe you Daniel, if you can demonstrate

that your opinion has some scientific basis.

And I sincerely hope you can,

because I just received in the mail

ANOTHER one of those pesky digital summonses

which shows me driving through ANOTHER red light.

So I badly need an expert

to prove that the two separate digital images of my car

are clever forgeries.

Raymond, I have only speculation, no scientific evidence. If the limo stop was excised from the original film, as I believe it was, then whatever happened during that stop was also lost. Read Toni Foster in the Kennedy Assassination Chronicles, Summer 2000 (or just google Toni Foster the Running Woman). She is adamant about the limo stopping, and lots of commotion surrounding the limo at the time. That's as scientific as I can get. I believe her, and I don't believe Gary Mack, Bill Miller, Tink Thompson et al who weren't there. Is that a scientific basis? At the very least, her testimony, and that of others, is data that has to be accounted for. Best, Daniel

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Raymond, I have only speculation, no scientific evidence.

Well that's a shame, Daniel, that means I will have to pay those pesky tickets.

As for the rest, you believe in ANECDOTAL evidence.

Not scientific.

[Daniel Gallup]

Raymond, I have only speculation, no scientific evidence.

Well that's a shame, Daniel, that means I will have to pay those pesky tickets.

As for the rest, you believe in ANECDOTAL evidence.

Not scientific.

What else do we have for the moment of the headshot? Give me a better explanation for the lack of debris exiting the back of Kennedy's head.

[Pat Speer]

Raymond, I have only speculation, no scientific evidence.

Well that's a shame, Daniel, that means I will have to pay those pesky tickets.

As for the rest, you believe in ANECDOTAL evidence.

Not scientific.

What else do we have for the moment of the headshot? Give me a better explanation for the lack of debris exiting the back of Kennedy's head.

More important than your believing in anecdotal evidence, Daniel, you are believing in cherry-picked anecdotal evidence from a witness first interviewed decades after the incident in question. As shown many times on this forum, the closest eyewitnesses, in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, DID NOT claim the limo came to a full stop and that during this stop someone blew the back of JFK's head off.

The eyewitness evidence, when taken as a whole, is clear. The limo slowed and the top of JFK's head exploded... This, not coincidentally, is exactly what is shown in the Z-film.

[Bill Miller]

I cannot believe that even the most fanatic alteration supporter would still continue debating whether Moorman was in the street or not. Whether it be David Lifton - Fetzer - or Drunky the Clown ... the position of the cycles in Moorman's photo tell the story. I do not care if Mary had thought she was laying flat of her back in the street when she took her famous Polaroid ... her photo that was filmed for TV not 35 minutes post assassination and while having been in Mary's possession the entire time shows the cycles in relation to her said lens height as they are in every copy print that I have seen. In other words, Moorman could have misspoke, but the camera did not!

Now what is there about this test that the alteration supporters cannot understand ... ??? The alteration claimants have 54.5" for Moorman's lens height. I set a tripod so the camera was 54.5" off the ground. I took a photo from where Moorman is seen in the grass and another from in the street. The results speak for themself! (see below)

It's now been 10 years since that test was conducted and no one has presented a recreation test of their own showing a different result. Are these alteration supporters so inept when it comes to "perspective" that they cannot comprehend what the cycles windscreens would look like against the background of the knoll and colonnade? If so, then that does not constitute alteration, but rather a personal comprehension problem.

Here once again is Moorman's photo in question and where the 58" stands were when seen by Mary Moorman standing in the grass. I only ask that if Lifton or anyone else still doestn't understand the significance of this data, then I can maybe find a simpler way to demonstrate it.

Bill

Edited July 5, 2011 by Bill Miller

[David Josephs]

Mr. LIEBELER - You also testified that you were standing perhaps no more than 15 feet away when the President was hit in the head and that you are absolutely certain that there were no shots fired after the President was hit in the head?

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir; that's correct.

BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight.

So I imagine these are simply mistakes? Two of the closet people to the car and they could not judge distance... one a pro photographer needing to focus his equipment...

It's 40-45 feet from z255 to z313... it's at least 6 seconds from first to last shot

Is this a mass illusion or is there something there?

[Paul Rigby]

More important than your believing in anecdotal evidence, Daniel, you are believing in cherry-picked anecdotal evidence from a witness first interviewed decades after the incident in question.

And you don't cherry-pick, Pat? Remarkable: You must be the only one of us without sin.

As shown many times on this forum, the closest eyewitnesses, in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, DID NOT claim the limo came to a full stop and that during this stop someone blew the back of JFK's head off.

The eyewitness evidence, when taken as a whole, is clear. The limo slowed and the top of JFK's head exploded... This, not coincidentally, is exactly what is shown in the Z-film.

Quite the reverse is true: The Warren Commission ignored those witnesses who should be in the Z-fake, but aren't. The one fake, the inquiry, reinforced the other, the film, as witnesses who were called were badgered into resiling from their initial claim that the presidential limo came to a complete halt.