Mary Moorman

[Mark Tyler]

On 2/28/2021 at 11:11 PM, Karl Hilliard said:

Don't beat yourself up...There are those that claim they are researchers that have studied the case for 40 years [or so] and are absolutely convinced that Oswald did it...all alone for no apparent reason that they can offer...[did it for his love of Castro etc] As far as the shots---No one will ever know [in this life]---How many and when. The search links are really hairy. What did that Dictabelt recording ever offer?

 

I agree Karl, knowing the exact number of shots and when they were fired is probably an impossible question to answer with 100% certainty.  Without an audio recording it will always remain moot as the witnesses can only be approximate regarding what they heard.  Sadly the dictabelt only seems to offer false hope in this regard.

The lone nut theory is appealing in terms of its simplicity, but it fails to explain important aspects of the crime scene, such as the witnesses who are convinced shots were fired too quickly for a single gunman (including Mary Moorman who inspired this thread).

[Mark Tyler]

20 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I suspect you already know this, but this very issue was one of the reasons I created my website. I made the decision to read through ALL the eyewitness evidence. This led me to realize that the first shot absolutely positively hit Kennedy, and that the first shot miss myth spread by Lattimer, Posner and Myers, etc (and accepted by most everyone) was a hoax. So I started accumulating all the witness statements by location dnd chronology...and this led to an even more startling conclusion--that the last shot (or sound) absolutely positively failed to hit anyone. 

From pats peer.com, Chapter 2:

Studying all of the witness statements is a long and laborious job, but is an absolute necessity when trying to piece together the full shot sequence (and exposing the ruthless cherry-picking some people engage in to sell their pet theory!).  With so many theories in this case it's very easy to be distracted by ideas rather than dealing with the facts as reported back in 1963 and 1964.  I think it was the HSCA who started the Z150-Z160 missed shot idea with the dictabelt analysis, which forced them to have a missed shot at Z160 and then the single bullet theory at Z190.  This fails to make sense on many levels: JFK and others are behaving normally Z160-Z195 despite a shot allegedly being fired over their heads; Oswald could not have fired two shots in less than two seconds; the SBT at Z190 is even harder to make work than at Z220 as the angle is steeper.

Perhaps Luis Alvarez explained the beginning of the shooting best when he said he thought two shots were fired between Z177 and Z215.  This not only fits the Z-film jiggles Z190-Z210 and victim reactions Z225-Z230, but also the roadside witnesses seem to agree that this was the position of the limo when the shooting started.  If the next burst of gunfire was just around the head shot, then logically the final burst must have been after the head shot, as those closest to the TSBD heard three well spaced shots (or bursts).  Knowing the exact frames that shots were fired, and how many in total were fired is probably impossible to know, but this general pattern of three bursts fits the Z-film and witness statements fairly well.

[Mark Tyler]

21 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

I suspect Mary Moorman's shots after Z313 are a misremembering. She states she saw Kennedy grab his chest and then the car accelerated. Look at her photo. She can't see his chest, or what he is doing with his arms. She must be talking about the shot around Z190. She was likely panning her camera with the car. He testimony makes more sense as another' bang... Bang-bang witness'. 

Individual witnesses did indeed make mistakes, and if the late shot after the head shot was reported by just Moorman and Hill I would probably have concluded it was a mistake too.  However, when so many witnesses agree that there was a late shot (or shots), I am inclined to accept at least one shot was fired after the head shot.

In terms of the bang, pause, bang-bang shot sequence it is possible to follow the jiggles in the Z-film and adhere to the bang pattern by having shots at Z190, Z310, and Z370 (gaps of 6.6 and 3.3 seconds).  Some witnesses support this timeline such as Arnold Rowland said he heard shots 6-8 seconds apart and then 2-3 seconds, which is fairly close.  It also matches the majority of witnesses who only heard one shot at the beginning before JFK raised his arms.

However, it does create some issues such as the two second lag in the Z-film from the Z190 jiggles to until the victims start reacting at Z225-Z230 (not forgetting we need to make the single bullet theory work at Z190 somehow!).  Then there is John Connally who said he wasn't hit by the first shot (he said the gap between the shot and him being hit was two seconds, which fits shots at Z185 and Z220 which matches the Z-film jiggles and victim reactions 5 frames later in each case).

In summary, this is all about which witnesses are right and which are wrong (and most importantly how we decide).  As I have found, if a researcher is committed to a theory (e.g. shots at Z150, Z220, Z310) then that is how they judge witnesses (and even dismissing the jiggle in the Z-film Z190-Z210).  I personally prefer to do it the other way round and judge the theory on how much witness, film, photo, and physical evidence supports it.  I think this is what the Warren Commission got wrong.  They insisted that only three shots were fired, and they then struggled to shoehorn all of the evidence into that theory.  In the end they gave up and didn't commit to when their missed shot was fired, and only fixed the Z210 and Z310 shots as the Zapruder film identifies the victims reacting in the following frames.

[Joe Bauer]

Every witness claimed they heard at least three shots.

The question is, which one missed?

The first ... second ... third?

Which one wounded James Tague?

Since the bullet that supposedly went through JFK's back and neck and then through John Connally was recovered almost intact, the bullet fragments found on the seat and floor and the fragment that reportedly made the significant dent in the chrome windshield frame had to have been made by the bullet that obliterated JFK's skull and brain...correct?

Proving which of the three shots missed would really help clarify the time frame of the shooting. And which could either bolster the premise of Oswald being able to get off the three shots by himself...or not.

Yes, eye/ear witness testimony is all over the place in this case. However, the sequence of the last two shots being very close together seems such a consensus above all others by a broad margin, I would reason that this observation is pretty valid.

Edited March 2, 2021 by Joe Bauer

[John Butler]

49 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Yes, eye/ear witness testimony is all over the place in this case.

Joe is right.  There are over 105+ witnesses that say the Zapruder film is junk fraud.  These 105+ witnesses were "ruthlessly cherry picked" from all of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza.  They were "ruthlessly cherry picked" based on the question asked of witness testimony "Where was the p. limo when you heard shots?".

Two very able researchers concluded that many of the frames in the Zapruder film were missing.  I reminded them of the Zapruder Gap of about 15 seconds.  When I added up their numbers with the numbers from the Zapruder Gap I saw that more than half of the film was missing.  I don't see how anyone can put credence in any thing in the Zapruder film.  If you come to that conclusion then almost every theory based on the Zapruder film is wrong.

Is the Zapruder film faulty?  Yes, based on this example.  And, there are many others.

Sometime back Jack White said when you compare the East crosswalk of Elm and Houston in the Zapruder film and Altgens 5 you cannot identify a single soul that is in both film and photo.  Try to do that in the following:

Can you match anyone?

You can talk about this jiggle or that jiggle, but you still cannot determine how many shots there were, or when they were fired, or which shot struck what.  Those are questions that can't be answered based on witness statements or the so called extant Zapruder film.  You will have to declare some witnesses as decieving, or inept, or something to to eliminate the offending witness.  And, use the ones you favor.

In my selection of 105+ witnesses, from all the witnesses in Dealey Plaza, there were those that had something different to say about what happened in Dealey Plaza.  Then there were those I that I eliminated who said similar things to the 105+ witnesses, but it could be argued that they said something different from the 105+ witnesses based on a single word or two.

  

[Jamey Flanagan]

Joe Bauer, the real question isn't which ONE missed, lol! There appears to be many misses that day. Only one of these misses however would be the one that caused a piece of concrete or something to cause the cut on Tague's cheek. So I get what you are asking, lol! I've seen so many documentaries and YouTube videos and read so many articles and books on the assassination I sometimes can't remember exactly where I've heard or read something but I remember someone once saying of the assassination (possibly after talking about the supposed conversation that Dan Marvin overhears with the guy saying things went really well in Dallas) that no, things didn't go well......it was a sloppy mishandled assassination and coverup. Things went wrong. They had to improvise and adjust the plan on the fly. But the memorable thing I remember this person saying was that there were almost as many shots that completely missed the limo as there were hits to Kennedy (and inadvertently I suppose Connally).

[Joe Bauer]

4 hours ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

Joe Bauer, the real question isn't which ONE missed, lol! There appears to be many misses that day. Only one of these misses however would be the one that caused a piece of concrete or something to cause the cut on Tague's cheek. So I get what you are asking, lol! I've seen so many documentaries and YouTube videos and read so many articles and books on the assassination I sometimes can't remember exactly where I've heard or read something but I remember someone once saying of the assassination (possibly after talking about the supposed conversation that Dan Marvin overhears with the guy saying things went really well in Dallas) that no, things didn't go well......it was a sloppy mishandled assassination and coverup. Things went wrong. They had to improvise and adjust the plan on the fly. But the memorable thing I remember this person saying was that there were almost as many shots that completely missed the limo as there were hits to Kennedy (and inadvertently I suppose Connally).

So JF, do you assign any credibility to Colonel Dan Marvin?

If so why? If not, why? 

Also, do you have any thoughts on what created the indentation in the chrome windshield frame? It was round, fingertip deep and lifted all the metal around it 5 inches across and 3 inches high.

[Jamey Flanagan]

I really don't have much of a strong opinion on Dan Marvin either way which is why I said the supposed conversation, lol! It could be 50/50 to me. How about you? And I have no doubt it was a bullet that caused the chrome windshield frame damage. 100% sure! I would say a complete round if I had to guess but maybe a deflection or something. Not that I give much credence to the one-sided documentary The Lost Bullet, but I do find credence in the thought that a possible early shot from the sniper's nest window (not fired by Oswald though, at least not the one shot by Ruby) did pass through the bottom corner of the traffic light. Not sure if the chrome damage lines up with that or not if it was deflected by passing through the traffic light. I think they were trying to attribute it to the Tague wound, but I believe that happened later in the shooting sequence. I think it was Kellerman if I'm not mistaken who said he heard JFK say something like "I'm hit!" Can't remember the exact phrase but something like that. I think it was in his Warren Comission testimony and they asked him how he knew it was the President and he said because of his thick Boston accent. Maybe a hot shard of metal from the traffic light hit him somewhere rather than a bullet. Or if a miss hit the curb that early before the throat shot maybe it threw concrete up similar to the Tague wound. Not sure. Just speculation. As I recall, I think he was the only one in the limo that reported hearing this so who knows?

[Karl Hilliard]

9 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

 

Yes, eye/ear witness testimony is all over the place in this case. However, the sequence of the last two shots being very close together seems such a consensus above all others by a broad margin, I would reason that this observation is pretty valid.

Many witnesses stated that the last shot [the fatal one] was a pa-pow sound. I believe that JFK was hit twice in the head simultaneously. One shot in back of the head with a forward motion............. and instantly, a shot from behind that fence on the grassy knoll.

Edited March 3, 2021 by Karl Hilliard

[Joe Bauer]

1 hour ago, Karl Hilliard said:

Many witnesses stated that the last shot [the fatal one] was a pa-pow sound. I believe that JFK was hit twice in the head simultaneously. One shot in back of the head with a forward motion............. and instantly, a shot from behind that fence on the grassy knoll.

Egads ...that's a lot of blood and brain matter exploding out of JFK's obliterated skull.

Looks like a bulls-eye hit on a watermelon.

I've seen You Tube video film of large game animals being hit in the head by rifle bullets more potent than the Carcano and can't recall seeing their skulls being exploded to that degree. Yes, human skull bone is less thick than many game animals...but still?  

Notice SS agent limo driver Bill Greer is looking "straight back" at JFK the second his head explodes?

Greer testified differently to the WC regards turning his head fully back to see the head shot.

[Tony Krome]

On 2/27/2021 at 9:20 AM, Tony Krome said:

Reality;

Moorman had been waiting to take a photo of the Kennedys. She had a Polaroid camera and she had one crack at getting a single photo that captured their faces as they were coming toward her position. She took that photo, and that photo was confiscated by Featherstone.

What is known as the Moorman photo is more than likely a Polaroid photo of a single frame of a moving film.

Mr. SPECTER. Have you seen any other films of the assassination? 
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes;..... I saw a black-and-white film.

 

 

But Krahmer [Mary Ann Moorman] said she clearly remembers only three shots being fired that day.

“I heard the shot, took the camera down, and I heard two more shots,” she said, comparing the sound of the shots to exploding firecrackers.

Firecracker sound disguising frontal shot (Moorman takes photo as limo approaches) ..... pause (lowers camera) ... two more firecracker sounds (the flurry which includes the fatal head shot)

Moorman has clear view of the headshot (not through viewfinder);

“I saw his hair jump. But it wasn't just his hair, it was part of his head,” said Krahmer. “That is so clear in my mind, to this day.”

Possibility: Photo showed hole in windshield ... photo disappears

[Chris Bristow]

There is no other known film from Dealey Plaza that day that has the exact same perspective as the Mary Ann Moorman photo. You can calculate multiple lines of sight to her position and it  matches the West/Roberdeau map to within just a few inches.

[Tony Krome]

3 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

There is no other known film from Dealey Plaza that day that has the exact same perspective as the Mary Ann Moorman photo. You can calculate multiple lines of sight to her position and it  matches the West/Roberdeau map to within just a few inches.

Kellerman said he saw a black and white film of the assassination. We can't disprove that he did. Moorman said she heard two shots after she lowered the camera and heard only one other shot while the camera was up. She actually saw the limo all but stop and the head shot.

 Moorman: "the car either stopped momentarily or hesitated"

Have you seen the photos/film from the Babushka camera? Was it a Yashica still camera or something else? I don't believe we know for sure.

The pics below are for a general idea of the position of Moorman and Babushka. I have no faith in the films.

 

"West/Roberdeau map to within just a few inches"  What does this calculation rely upon? What photos/film?

Edited May 4, 2021 by Tony Krome

[Chris Bristow]

1 hour ago, Tony Krome said:

Kellerman said he saw a black and white film of the assassination. We can't disprove that he did. Moorman said she heard two shots after she lowered the camera and heard only one other shot while the camera was up. She actually saw the limo all but stop and the head shot.

 Moorman: "the car either stopped momentarily or hesitated"

Have you seen the photos/film from the Babushka camera? Was it a Yashica still camera or something else? I don't believe we know for sure.

The pics below are for a general idea of the position of Moorman and Babushka. I have no faith in the films.

 

"West/Roberdeau map to within just a few inches"  What does this calculation rely upon? What photos/film?

I thought about the bushka lady and she is the closest. But the Moorman photo shows two lines of sight that mark her position to within a few inches. Where the corner  of the grassy knoll fence  lines up behind  and above the stairs is one line of sight. Where the right side of zapruder's pedestal lines up with the front of the pergola is the second line of sight. There is only one location where you could see both of those alignments and that is Moorman's location.

[Tony Krome]

5 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Where the corner  of the grassy knoll fence  lines up behind  and above the stairs is one line of sight. Where the right side of zapruder's pedestal lines up with the front of the pergola is the second line of sight. There is only one location where you could see both of those alignments and that is Moorman's location.

Yes, the photo itself determines the location of the cameraperson, but what photos/film are you relying on for Moorman's location?