David Lifton spots a piece of scalp in the Moorman photo.

[Steven Kossor]

I mistakenly placed the Moorman photo in a sequence *after* the bullet exited from the back of JFK's head, but have fixed that error.  Moorman's photo could only have been taken *before* the rear exit had been created since the right rear of JFK's head is not pointing toward the driver's side taillight in the Moorman photo (where it had to have been "pointing" in order for the exhaust of blood and brain to have struck that area of the limo and officer Hargis).  So Mary captured the first head shot that blasted out part of JFK's skull (caught it in flight over his right shoulder) which had to have turned his head to the right so that his head was turned toward the knoll when almost immediately afterward a second head shot entered on the right side (perhaps into the hole that had just been created there) and exited through the right rear of JFK's skull.  When we stop trying to piece the puzzle together with existing pictures, and instead rely on the immutable facts of physics and geometry, we can discover "missing picture pieces" and then can construct the most coherent understanding of the sequence of events that actually occurred.

[Steven Kossor]

I edited my post about the timing of the Moorman photo.  It must have been taken *before* JFK's head was turned so that the hole at the rear of his skull could exhaust material onto the driver's side tail light and officer Hargis.  The Moorman photo shows JFK more-or-less facing forward, so the hole would not exhaust material in the correct direction if the bullet had just struck JFK at or before the Moorman photo was exposed.

[Edward Fahey]

I am replying to John Butler's post, of May 16, 2020, in which he shows the Moorman photo and a close-up of the Moorman photo.  Both photos show a red circle.  Butler describes the phenomenon of "seeing things in vague distorted photos."  I, too, have "seen things" in enlargements of this particular photo.  I first noticed "figures" in an enlargement of the trees in the upper part of the picture.  One figure was Oswald.  For a long time, I just told myself that I was crazy, and forgot about it.  But Butler has pulled me back in.  He points out the lady with a large straw hat, in the back tire of the limo.  I see it.  To me it is Rose Kennedy.  Call me crazy, I don't care.  Here are more [for reference, divide Butler's close-up frame into thirds, vertically]:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

1.  In the RIGHT third, I "see" an image of Kennedy with his right eye closed, and mouth open.

2.  At the edge of the CENTER and RIGHT thirds, at the top, bordering the red line, on the inside of the red line, I "see" Fidel Castro.

3.  Next to Castro, on the RIGHT, top, I "see" three spook-like figures, which I can't associate with anyone.  This Moorman photo is filled with spooks, which I call "chamucos," Spanish for "devils."

4.  In the LEFT third of the frame, I "see" a real big chamuco.  It looks like a demi-human skull with two bright eyeballs.

Now, considering the "vague and distorted" nature of grainy, close-up, enlargements, a person could "see" almost anything he wanted.  In that sense, the images turn out to be nothing more than a set of ghoulish Rorschach tests.  And if the images are such tests, then what I see [and what you see] should be shared only with our respective psychiatrists.

But, there is another angle.  And that angle is deeply meta-physical.  Moorman was present, and took action [exposing her film] at an instant in time [co-incidence].  The resulting image captures a moment which reflects an explosive release of energy, first.  Second, it captures the moment of a human death.  An moment that the soul leaves [or, rather, in this case, is forcefully ejected from] the body.  [I don't care what your religion is, whatever it is, it does not matter, here].  At an explosive transformation, a liminal instant like this one, good and evil are likely to make a quick appearance, vying for control of the other-worldly direction of the soul of the departed.

Cameras have picked-up all sorts of "things" that were not supposed to be there.  Things that living humans completely missed, e.g, Kirlian photography.  I don't need to go into this.  Suffice it to say, that Moorman's emulsion may have captured a much broader perspective of Kennedy's death [the physical and meta-physical] than that which we limited humans normally consider as trees, walls, automobiles, other humans, tires, motorcycles, cops helmets, et. cetera.

So, blow-up the top portion of Moorman's photo, where the trees are, and tell me what you find.  Good Hunting.

 

 

[Tony Krome]

53 minutes ago, Edward Fahey said:

But Butler has pulled me back in.  He points out the lady with a large straw hat, in the back tire of the limo.  I see it.  To me it is Rose Kennedy.  Call me crazy, I don't care.

Mr Butler, is he referring to the left rear hubcap reflection in Moorman?

[Jamey Flanagan]

Edward Fahey, after reading your comment I Googled Moorman photo JFK and was looking at different light shadings of the photo and saw one that seemed a little lighter than the others. I zoomed in and was looking all over for things to be "seen" in the blurry pixels and I found this image in the pergola. Do you see the outline of a man's head, face and shoulders? The second pic I kinda traced around it to help you see what I'm referring to. The third is kept in the exact same magnification size but is off the people on the steps at the grassy knoll area to compare the size of these known humans at the scene. Well, when I clicked on this pic before posting it changed this one to the first pic . So the first one is the guys on the steps to compare their size with the outline of the "guy" in the pergola. What do you guys think?

Edited May 15, 2021 by Jamey Flanagan

[Ron Bulman]

Oswald in the trees?  Mescaline, peyote or LSD?  I think you've been Gottlieb'd.

Edited May 15, 2021 by Ron Bulman

[Ron Bulman]

19 minutes ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

Edward Fahey, after reading your comment I Googled Moorman photo JFK and was looking at different light shadings of the photo and saw one that seemed a little lighter than the others. I zoomed in and was looking all over for things to be "seen" in the blurry pixels and I found this image in the pergola. Do you see the outline of a man's head, face and shoulders? The second pic I kinda traced around it to help you see what I'm referring to. The third is kept in the exact same magnification size but is off the people on the steps at the grassy knoll area to compare the size of these known humans at the scene. Well, when I clicked on this pic before posting it changed this one to the first pic . So the first one is the guys on the steps to compare their size with the outline of the "guy" in the pergola. What do you guys think?

It does look a little pixilated, kind of fuzzy, hard to make out for sure.  Maybe another shot of Patron will clear things up.

 

[Andrej Stancak]

On 9/11/2020 at 6:49 PM, Steven Kossor said:

The position of JFK's head in the Moorman photo indicates that it was taken a moment before the shot from the front right that exited through the hole in the right rear of his skull since his head isn't yet turned in the correct direction that would have exhausted blood & brain in the direction that it traveled after the shot from the front right side happened. 

Steven: I was thinking a lot about your comment about the timing of Mary Moorman's picture. If Mary Moorman snapped her famous picture before the head shot, the photographic analysis shown in this thread would hang in the air. I am currently reading Josiah Thompson' Last second in Dallas, and the book claims the picture was shot 1/9 second after the head shot (presumably Z313). This would justify seeing the two holes in the right parietal area of the scalp in Moorman's picture.

My current working hypothesis would be that the two small holes seen in Moorman's picture would be the exit holes from the frontal head shot to the right temple, and this tangential shot would cause flipping of a large portion of the skull that would hang by the skin over the right ear. I guess, this is seen in Z film frames after Z313. Could this flap  have separated from from the head and remained in the limousine? 

 

[John Butler]

5 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

I am currently reading Josiah Thompson' Last second in Dallas, and the book claims the picture was shot 1/9 second after the head shot (presumably Z313). This would justify seeing the two holes in the right parietal area of the scalp in Moorman's picture.

Andrej,

I have just finished re-reading Mary's first and second statements to the authorities.  Mary said as she snapped her Polaroid of the president a shot rang out.  This was the first shot and in all there were 3 or 4 shots.  She later changed this to two or three.  If I am recalling correctly she stuck to the idea that the first shot was when she took her Polaroid.

This could be what Thompson thought as the 1/9th second.  As far as the two holes in the rear of Kennedy's head, I wish there was better photography to examine.  The holes appear more occipital then parietal.  Here's the best I can do with what I have:

This crop which has been lightened does show two light areas in a larger dark area that looks like a mask.  This maybe what Thompson was referring to as two shot holes.  Or, maybe not.  I wonder if the dark spots above Kennedy's head is what Lifton thought were skull fragments?  I don't see anything to relate to a skull fragment on the trunk.  As far as Kennedy's shoulder, it seems that is just bad quality film rather than a skull fragment.  I won't defend that position because the film quality here is so bad.

If one examines this closely and compares it to similar frames in Muchmore one could get the idea that the Polaroid and similar scenes in Muchmore were changed to reflect a head shot that would match Zapruder.  Then someone else decided that was not necessary and the head ejection plume was mostly removed.  The same thing was done to Muchmore frames.

Anyway, this frame from Muchmore suggests such an idea.

In fact this scene or similar ones from Muchmore is probably the reason that some folks think Mary's Polaroid is taken from the Muchmore film.

Here is something that will bring howls of outrage.  It is something I played around with after reading Walt Brown's description of Hill Exhibit No. 5, the Top Secret testimony of Jean Hill.

 

Edited May 23, 2021 by John Butler

[Steven Kossor]

If I recall the sequence correctly, there were two shots in rapid succession around Zfilm frame 313.  I believe that the first shot came from the front and was an exploding round that entered JFK's skull in the hairline above the right eye.  Mary snapped her picture right after that impact.  Almost immediately after she took her picture, JFK's head had to have been spun (by the impact of the frontal shot above the right eye) to face toward the Knoll as a bullet fired from that area entered JFK's skull near his right ear and (with the back of his head now "pointing" toward the driver's side taillight), exited the right rear portion of his skull, exhausting blood and gore onto the driver's side taillight and onto Officer Hargis who was riding near the driver's side taillight at the time of the 2nd shot around Zfilm frame 313.  Some frames of the Zfilm have undoubtedly been removed because the film does not show the pivoting of JFK's head that is necessary for the hole in the right rear to exhaust brainmatter in the direction it traveled around the time Zfilm frame 313 was exposed.  If I recall correctly, it has been established that the limo was about 4 feet farther down Elm St. at the time of the 2nd headshot, so the removal of Zfilm frames (certainly those that captured the head pivot) can also be documented through that analysis.  There is no other way to reconcile the exhausting of material from the right rear of JFK's head toward the driver's side taillight with the existing movie/photographic record.

[Chuck Schwartz]

Steven, I think I agree with you.  Also, the CIA did not destroy the Z film because they felt they distorted it enough to support their lone gunman theory. In a way they were correct, it took about 40yrs for people to figure out that the Z film was tampered with and what was actually tampered.  And, people are still believing what Dan Rather said - JFK's head moved forward , not backwards.  I know Dan was told what to say, but he still maintains that position.

[Tony Krome]

4 hours ago, Steven Kossor said:

If I recall the sequence correctly, there were two shots in rapid succession around Zfilm frame 313.  I believe that the first shot came from the front and was an exploding round that entered JFK's skull in the hairline above the right eye.

Hickey: The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to be any impact against his head

Hickey reported hair movement but no head movement at the time of the first flurry shot. 

[Steven Kossor]

Hickey appears to be reporting a "near miss" that only made the hair on the right side fly forward.  I guess it's one more bullet sent flying toward Kennedy's head within that "last second in Dallas" in addition to the two (or three) that hit their target.  Thompson appears to believe that there was a "late shot" into the back of the skull but there isn't a corresponding exit wound on JFK's face.  I believe the evidence is strong to support two head wounds (one from the front that disintegrated inside JFK's head and didn't exit and one that allowed the super-pressurization of JFK's skull to be relieved before the scalp tore apart by knocking out a hole in the right rear through which the pressure exhausted).  With the official call for citizens to turn in their photo and movie film immediately after the killing, and the limited number of cameras operating in DP that weren't confiscated on-site immediately (and film destroyed on-site), the amount of film tampering necessary to create the "official photographic/movie record" of the event was well within the capability of the Jamison company which was advertising itself as "The Hollywood of the Midwest" because they had all of the sophisticated film editing equipment necessary on-site at the time that they produced copies of the Z film in their Dallas office.  Abe's gesture on camera in the Dallas TV station that night depicted JFK's head injury more like it looked in Bethesda than it looked at Parkland.  His occupying that pedestal and taking that movie couldn't have been more fortuitous (especially after he got a $16M payout from the citizens of the USA before donating it to the 6th floor museum that has efficiently blocked access to it ever since).

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Steven Kossor said:

If I recall the sequence correctly, there were two shots in rapid succession around Zfilm frame 313.  I believe that the first shot came from the front and was an exploding round that entered JFK's skull in the hairline above the right eye.  Mary snapped her picture right after that impact.  Almost immediately after she took her picture, JFK's head had to have been spun (by the impact of the frontal shot above the right eye) to face toward the Knoll as a bullet fired from that area entered JFK's skull near his right ear and (with the back of his head now "pointing" toward the driver's side taillight), exited the right rear portion of his skull, exhausting blood and gore onto the driver's side taillight and onto Officer Hargis who was riding near the driver's side taillight at the time of the 2nd shot around Zfilm frame 313.  Some frames of the Zfilm have undoubtedly been removed because the film does not show the pivoting of JFK's head that is necessary for the hole in the right rear to exhaust brainmatter in the direction it traveled around the time Zfilm frame 313 was exposed.  If I recall correctly, it has been established that the limo was about 4 feet farther down Elm St. at the time of the 2nd headshot, so the removal of Zfilm frames (certainly those that captured the head pivot) can also be documented through that analysis.  There is no other way to reconcile the exhausting of material from the right rear of JFK's head toward the driver's side taillight with the existing movie/photographic record.

Great hypothesis, Steven. 

[Steven Kossor]

We’ll see how well it stands up to scrutiny.  Thanks for your encouragement!