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

[Pat Speer]

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?

When one reads the eyewitness statements it rapidly becomes clear that no one statement is accurate, but that they overwhelmingly describe what is shown in the Z-film. This is as one should expect. The human mind is not a camcorder.

P.S. I assume your choice of Altgens and Brehm was ironic, and not on purpose. Altgens swore the last shot was the head shot. Brehm, however, was just as sure there was a shot after the head shot. And said so from the beginning.

As a result one can't correlate their statements without assuming at least one of them was badly mistaken.

[Paul Rigby]

Brehm, however, was just as sure there was a shot after the head shot. And said so from the beginning.

Brehm's initial description, as it appeared in the first post-assassination edition of the Dallas Times Herald:

Drehm seemed to think the shots came from in front or beside the President. He explained the President did not slump forward as if he would have after being shot from the rear.

“President Dead, Connally Shot,” The Dallas Times Herald, 22 November 1963, p.2 [cited by Joachim Joesten. Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy? (London: Merlin Press, 1964), p.176.]

[Bill Miller]

When one reads the eyewitness statements it rapidly becomes clear that no one statement is accurate, but that they overwhelmingly describe what is shown in the Z-film. This is as one should expect. The human mind is not a camcorder.

Al Carrier once made the point that several people can be witness to a stimulus and each once record it differently in their mind. I often use Brehm for an example for at least two shots into the assassination - Charles still has his arms raised and clapping.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Give me a better explanation for the lack of debris exiting the back of Kennedy's head.

On this issue I agree with Pat Speer, although Pat does not agree with me.

I believe JFK was hit by an exploding bullet from the right front

which caused a bulging of the bones

in the back of his head

as Bill miller has pointed out.

But there was no blowout from the back of the head.

That is my opinion, FWIW.

[Pat Speer]

Give me a better explanation for the lack of debris exiting the back of Kennedy's head.

On this issue I agree with Pat Speer, although Pat does not agree with me.

I believe JFK was hit by an exploding bullet from the right front

which caused a bulging of the bones

in the back of his head

as Bill miller has pointed out.

But there was no blowout from the back of the head.

That is my opinion, FWIW.

Well, we're pretty close. I've concluded that the bullet impacted at the supposed exit, exploded, and shattered the back of the skull (which remained beneath the scalp). I just think this bullet was fired from behind.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Well, we're pretty close. I've concluded that the bullet impacted at the supposed exit, exploded, and shattered the back of the skull (which remained beneath the scalp). I just think this bullet was fired from behind.

Thank you Patrick, I guess we agree and disagree.

But how do you explain the FACT that JFK was driven BACKWARDS

by the fatal bullet, if not by a shot from the right front?

[Pat Speer]

Well, we're pretty close. I've concluded that the bullet impacted at the supposed exit, exploded, and shattered the back of the skull (which remained beneath the scalp). I just think this bullet was fired from behind.

Thank you Patrick, I guess we agree and disagree.

But how do you explain the FACT that JFK was driven BACKWARDS

by the fatal bullet, if not by a shot from the right front?

I believe the bullet impacted near the right temple, which, due to the tilt of JFK's head, was near the top. The impact then drove the skull down, after which the neck muscles recoiled and sprung the head back at a much slower speed.

I noticed a similar reaction in a video on youtube...

A kidnapper is hit in the right temple. His head spins left with the bullet, but then jerks back before he drops.

You can see it here (Warning: it's graphic):

Edited July 6, 2011 by Pat Speer

[J. Raymond Carroll]

A kidnapper is hit in the right temple. His head spins left with the bullet, but then jerks back before he drops.

Sorry Patrick, I don't see that.

I would like to see that scene in slow motion.

I cannot tell whether that bullet came from right or left,

but to me it looked like the kidnapper was driven backwards

by a bullet from somewhere in front.

Recall the Gary Mack program, INSIDE THE TARGET CAR?

IN that program you can clearly see that IN EVERY INSTANCE

the "skull" was driven in the same direction as the bullet.

In that program the skulls are always driven forward by a bullet from behind

which proves to me that since JKF was driven backwards,

he must have been shot from the front.

[Daniel Gallup]

A kidnapper is hit in the right temple. His head spins left with the bullet, but then jerks back before he drops.

Sorry Patrick, I don't see that.

I would like to see that scene in slow motion.

I cannot tell whether that bullet came from right or left,

but to me it looked like the kidnapper was driven backwards

by a bullet from somewhere in front.

Recall the Gary Mack program, INSIDE THE TARGET CAR?

IN that program you can clearly see that IN EVERY INSTANCE

the "skull" was driven in the same direction as the bullet.

In that program the skulls are always driven forward by a bullet from behind

which proves to me that since JKF was driven backwards,

he must have been shot from the front.

One thing that is very obvious in this disucssion: a lot of perspectives are tied together. Pat and I disagree on the wounding to Kennedy's head, and my view of the wounding affects my view of the film. If my view of Kennedy's wounding is correct, the ejecta from the back of the head, which had to be considerable, was removed from the film to attempt to remove evidence of a shooter from the front. I am not claiming that this shooting came while the limo was stopped, but certainly when it was going slower that depicted in the extant film. I vigorously disagree with Pat that the principle witnesses to the head shot confirm the speed of the limo as shown in the extant film. David Lifton, after all interviewed a number of these in 1971 before the extant film was ever shown, and they all said it stopped. A number of motorcycle officers said it stopped. Toni Foster's assertions are late, true, but that is hardly her fault. Who took the time to interview her before Debra Conway in 2000? Now had Toni said one thing in 1963 or 4, and something totally different in 2000, that would be grounds to impeach her testimony.

I have to throw a bone to Bill Miller, whose studies on the height of the motorcycle shield seem definitive to me. But that is a separate issue from the limo stop, and what might have gone on during that stop, or around the time of the stop.

I would also agree, Raymond, that the poor slob who got himself shot showed every evidence of being struck from the front. Remind me not to kidnap anybody. Best, Daniel

[Chris Davidson]

A kidnapper is hit in the right temple. His head spins left with the bullet, but then jerks back before he drops.

Sorry Patrick, I don't see that.

I would like to see that scene in slow motion.

I cannot tell whether that bullet came from right or left,

but to me it looked like the kidnapper was driven backwards

by a bullet from somewhere in front.

Recall the Gary Mack program, INSIDE THE TARGET CAR?

IN that program you can clearly see that IN EVERY INSTANCE

the "skull" was driven in the same direction as the bullet.

In that program the skulls are always driven forward by a bullet from behind

which proves to me that since JKF was driven backwards,

he must have been shot from the front.

Raymond,

Slow Motion.

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/headshot.gif

chris

[Pat Speer]

A kidnapper is hit in the right temple. His head spins left with the bullet, but then jerks back before he drops.

Sorry Patrick, I don't see that.

I would like to see that scene in slow motion.

I cannot tell whether that bullet came from right or left,

but to me it looked like the kidnapper was driven backwards

by a bullet from somewhere in front.

Recall the Gary Mack program, INSIDE THE TARGET CAR?

IN that program you can clearly see that IN EVERY INSTANCE

the "skull" was driven in the same direction as the bullet.

In that program the skulls are always driven forward by a bullet from behind

which proves to me that since JKF was driven backwards,

he must have been shot from the front.

I'm fairly certain Inside the Target Car used stationary heads and necks, Ray. In Sturdivan's HSCA testimony, however, he claimed the skulls fired upon for the WC always fell forward. He later abandoned this and claimed they only did so because the brain simulant was too stiff. Malarkey.

As far as the head shot I'd linked to, the news coverage (unless they've since removed it) shows the sniper and he fires from the kidnapper's right, hitting him in the right temple and exploding out the left side of his head. The head swings left and then back to the right in the split second before the poor dude drops.

As far as JFK's back and to the left movement...if you assume his position at 312, then slap yourself with your right hand above your right ear from behind, you'll bounce forward and then back...just like Kennedy.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

A kidnapper is hit in the right temple. His head spins left with the bullet, but then jerks back before he drops.

Sorry Patrick, I don't see that.

I would like to see that scene in slow motion.

I cannot tell whether that bullet came from right or left,

but to me it looked like the kidnapper was driven backwards

by a bullet from somewhere in front.

Recall the Gary Mack program, INSIDE THE TARGET CAR?

IN that program you can clearly see that IN EVERY INSTANCE

the "skull" was driven in the same direction as the bullet.

In that program the skulls are always driven forward by a bullet from behind

which proves to me that since JKF was driven backwards,

he must have been shot from the front.

One thing that is very obvious in this disucssion: a lot of perspectives are tied together. Pat and I disagree on the wounding to Kennedy's head, and my view of the wounding affects my view of the film. If my view of Kennedy's wounding is correct, the ejecta from the back of the head, which had to be considerable, was removed from the film to attempt to remove evidence of a shooter from the front. I am not claiming that this shooting came while the limo was stopped, but certainly when it was going slower that depicted in the extant film. I vigorously disagree with Pat that the principle witnesses to the head shot confirm the speed of the limo as shown in the extant film. David Lifton, after all interviewed a number of these in 1971 before the extant film was ever shown, and they all said it stopped. A number of motorcycle officers said it stopped. Toni Foster's assertions are late, true, but that is hardly her fault. Who took the time to interview her before Debra Conway in 2000? Now had Toni said one thing in 1963 or 4, and something totally different in 2000, that would be grounds to impeach her testimony.

I have to throw a bone to Bill Miller, whose studies on the height of the motorcycle shield seem definitive to me. But that is a separate issue from the limo stop, and what might have gone on during that stop, or around the time of the stop.

I would also agree, Raymond, that the poor slob who got himself shot showed every evidence of being struck from the front. Remind me not to kidnap anybody. Best, Daniel

Daniel, I think it's inaccurate to insinuate the motorcycle officers claimed the limo stopped. Hargis mentioned it once or twice, but he later clarified that it almost stopped, and has never said anything indicating he assumed the Z-film was fake. As far as Lifton and the closest witnesses, who, besides Newman, did he interview?

And if you're gonna rely on Newman--who has never suggested the Z-film was fake, by the way--well, then you oughta rely upon his two most consistent observations:

1. The sound at the time of the head shot came from behind him, at the back of the arcade, and not from his right--the direction of the picket fence.

2. The right top side of Kennedy's head--by his right ear--exploded, and NOT the back of his head. Newman, who I believe has been interviewed more than any other witness, is clear about this. He was but 15 feet or so away from Kennedy, staring right at the back of his head, when Kennedy's head exploded. And yet he saw nothing explode from the back of the head. Nothing. He saw one wound, by Kennedy's temple, (EXACTLY where it is depicted in the Z-film), and told people about this before Kennedy had even been pronounced dead.

It's really really silly, IMO, to use him as a witness supporting that the back of the head exploded, and that the Z-film is fake.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Pat Speer

[J. Raymond Carroll]

As far as JFK's back and to the left movement...if you assume his position at 312, then slap yourself with your right hand above your right ear from behind, you'll bounce forward and then back...just like Kennedy.

I beg to differ, Pat, and I call a Nobel laureate in physics

as my expert witness.

Luis Alvarez says it was the abrupt slowdown of the limo

that caused JFK's forward movement. He says Jackie and the Connally's

were also jerked forward by the same force.

Now of course Alvarez does not support the remainder of my theory,

namely that JFK was then driven backwards by the FORCE

of an exploding bullet.

[David Lifton]

A kidnapper is hit in the right temple. His head spins left with the bullet, but then jerks back before he drops.

Sorry Patrick, I don't see that.

I would like to see that scene in slow motion.

I cannot tell whether that bullet came from right or left,

but to me it looked like the kidnapper was driven backwards

by a bullet from somewhere in front.

Recall the Gary Mack program, INSIDE THE TARGET CAR?

IN that program you can clearly see that IN EVERY INSTANCE

the "skull" was driven in the same direction as the bullet.

In that program the skulls are always driven forward by a bullet from behind

which proves to me that since JKF was driven backwards,

he must have been shot from the front.

One thing that is very obvious in this disucssion: a lot of perspectives are tied together. Pat and I disagree on the wounding to Kennedy's head, and my view of the wounding affects my view of the film. If my view of Kennedy's wounding is correct, the ejecta from the back of the head, which had to be considerable, was removed from the film to attempt to remove evidence of a shooter from the front. I am not claiming that this shooting came while the limo was stopped, but certainly when it was going slower that depicted in the extant film. I vigorously disagree with Pat that the principle witnesses to the head shot confirm the speed of the limo as shown in the extant film. David Lifton, after all interviewed a number of these in 1971 before the extant film was ever shown, and they all said it stopped. A number of motorcycle officers said it stopped. Toni Foster's assertions are late, true, but that is hardly her fault. Who took the time to interview her before Debra Conway in 2000? Now had Toni said one thing in 1963 or 4, and something totally different in 2000, that would be grounds to impeach her testimony.

I have to throw a bone to Bill Miller, whose studies on the height of the motorcycle shield seem definitive to me. But that is a separate issue from the limo stop, and what might have gone on during that stop, or around the time of the stop.

I would also agree, Raymond, that the poor slob who got himself shot showed every evidence of being struck from the front. Remind me not to kidnap anybody. Best, Daniel

Daniel, I think it's inaccurate to insinuate the motorcycle officers claimed the limo stopped. Hargis mentioned it once or twice, but he later clarified that it almost stopped, and has never said anything indicating he assumed the Z-film was fake. As far as Lifton and the closest witnesses, who, besides Newman, did he interview?

And if you're gonna rely on Newman--who has never suggested the Z-film was fake, by the way--well, then you oughta rely upon his two most consistent observations:

1. The sound at the time of the head shot came from behind him, at the back of the arcade, and not from his right--the direction of the picket fence.

2. The right top side of Kennedy's head--by his right ear--exploded, and NOT the back of his head. Newman, who I believe has been interviewed more than any other witness, is clear about this. He was but 15 feet or so away from Kennedy, staring right at the back of his head, when Kennedy's head exploded. And yet he saw nothing explode from the back of the head. Nothing. He saw one wound, by Kennedy's temple, (EXACTLY where it is depicted in the Z-film), and told people about this before Kennedy had even been pronounced dead.

It's really really silly, IMO, to use him as a witness supporting that the back of the head exploded, and that the Z-film is fake.

I interviewed William Newman (and his wife) in late November, 1971. My friend, the late Bill Corrigan, went to his home, and spent well over an hour there.

The interview was recorded on a SONY reel to reel machine, the same model that Nixon used in Watergate.

Both Newman and his wife said that the car stopped. There was nothing subtle about it. It stopped. Moreover, when I told him that the film at the National Archives showed not such stop, he responded that he didn't care what the film showed--the car stopped, and he was there.

I think what is really silly is that the witnesses can be ignored because of some psychologist's theory. They were there and they said the car stopped.

Newman did not offer any theory that the Zapruder film was faked--and I did not question him in that fashion. I questioned him about what he saw--and he said the car stopped.

Period.

FYI: I also interviewed Franzen, and Chism, and spent over an hour in Moorman's home. Her husband forbade me from using my tape recorder, but Bill and I made extensive notes afterwards. I have posted that account elsewhere. And yes, Moorman, too, was a car-stop witness.

DSL

7/7/11; 2:30 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

[Richard Hocking]

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

Hi Bill.

Very interesting analysis.

Is there somewhere I can view the documentation (heights, distances, ect.) for this?