Mary Moorman

[Chris Bristow]

4 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

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

 first I relied on the Moorman photo itself for those two lines of sight. I've compared her location in all the other images of her. That would be the Nix film and Muchmore and the Z film. They all matched. Using lines of sight to verify the location of Nixs and muchmore before using lines of sight to find Mary Ann Moorman within the frame.

The Z film is difficult because you have to rely on the limo position to find her because there isn't anything else in the frame. But there is a way to use the shrubs in the top of the frames prior to frame 315 to pin down her location. I'm going to free up some memory and post a graphic the verifies her location in the Z film

[Chris Bristow]

The top part of this comp is from the Hughes film when he was standing about 20 feet East of Z' pedestal after the shooting. Because it shows the shrubs and the peristyle behind it a comparison with the shrubs in Z can be used to find her location relative to the peristyle from Z's perspective.
The shrubs above Moorman disappear from Z's view but once the two images are sized to match you can project just a few feet ahead of Jean Hill to determine Moorman's location.

NOTE: There is a tiny bit of parallax between Z's and Hughes positions that creates misalignment of the shrubs to the peristyle but it is only maybe 5 inches.

 

Edited April 3, 2023 by Chris Bristow

[Robin Unger]

Moorman Polaroid taken by Jean Hill on  the morning of the assassination 11/22/63 using Mary's camera

Photo credit: Jack White (Click on the image to view the LARGE photo)

 

Edited May 5, 2021 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Coverups November 1984 "Mary Moorman" Gary Mack

(Click on the image to view the LARGE photo)

[Tony Krome]

On 5/5/2021 at 9:42 AM, Chris Bristow said:

The top part of this comp is from the Hughes film when he was standing about 20 feet East of Z' pedestal after the shooting. Because it shows the shrubs and the peristyle behind it a comparison with the shrubs in Z can be used to find her location relative to the peristyle from Z's perspective.
The shrubs above Moorman disappear from Z's view but once the two images are sized to match you can project just a few feet ahead of Jean Hill to determine Moorman's location.

NOTE: There is a tiny bit of parallax between Z's and Hughes positions that creates misalignment of the shrubs to the peristyle but it is only maybe 5 inches.

Certainly a clever way of locating. The drawback is that we need to pan right on the Hughes pic (obvious lamp-post) to the pedestal's line of sight. The bushes above Hill are not a definitive match, the rest looks good. I'm not a Z-Film fan, so any reference to it for absolute calculations are viewed with scepticism.

Here's something for consideration, is it even possible to pan with a polaroid camera, track the limo moving adjacent to her position, and finish up with a photo that doesn't cause blurring of the limo or the background ? According to the instructions, no. You have to hold the camera steady, breathe in, and "slow click" the shutter. And thats the instructions for a still subject.

 

 

 

Edited November 15, 2023 by Tony Krome

[John Butler]

People really need to look at some of these old photos and film frames with a questioning mind.  This montage compares the tall tree covering the west side of the TSBD shown in the Moorman Polaroid above and reality.  

The tall tree shown in the Glen McBride Polaroid did not exist.  It was put there by a graphic artist to cover up something.  Perhaps shooters looking out a window on the west side.

[Richard Price]

23 minutes ago, John Butler said:

People really need to look at some of these old photos and film frames with a questioning mind.  This montage compares the tall tree covering the west side of the TSBD shown in the Moorman Polaroid above and reality. 

John, you need to carefully examine the photos in front of you and realign your perspective.  Through a camera lens, the perspective is changed immensely when moved only slightly.  This and the depth of field in the photo can really mess with your mind if you don't correctly correlate two or more pictures and the distance/location from which they were taken.  I believe the correct correlation is shown below with the circles of the same color reflecting the same trees.

[Jonathan Cohen]

30 minutes ago, John Butler said:

The tall tree shown in the Glen McBride Polaroid did not exist.  It was put there by a graphic artist to cover up something.  Perhaps shooters looking out a window on the west side.

"Put there by a graphic artist" ? Is there no end to your preposterous, baseless allegations?

[John Butler]

5 hours ago, Richard Price said:

John, you need to carefully examine the photos in front of you and realign your perspective.  Through a camera lens, the perspective is changed immensely when moved only slightly.

Thank you Richard,

I never thought about camera angles.  What I thought about is a 50 foot tree in Dealey Plaza.  How do I know its 50+ feet?  Well count the floors on the TSBD.  I believe they were at least 10 feet or slightly more.  Look at the Polaroid and count floors.

Tony Krome explained that this next photo was from 1977 from a movie The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald.  This is 14 years later and trees are still not 50 feet on the west side of the TSBD.  That includes camera angles.

Well, if a graphic artist didn't paint it then maybe fairies did it.  Why?  Because it is magical and has no relation to reality.  The tree in the Polaroid is over 50 feet tall and rises above the 5th floor.  How did I know the tree is painted?  Simply, because I could do a better job.  Most of the artwork in various altered photos and film frames are generally not up to realistic standards.  I would suspect this was due to the volume of material they had to work with and the time needed to do the job.  

Edited May 6, 2021 by John Butler

[Robin Unger]

TSBD photo taken on 11/24/63

[Chris Bristow]

18 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

Certainly a clever way of locating. The drawback is that we need to pan right on the Hughes pic (obvious lamp-post) to the pedestal's line of sight. The bushes above Hill are not a definitive match, the rest looks good. I'm not a Z-Film fan, so any reference to it for absolute calculations are viewed with scepticism.

Here's something for consideration, is it even possible to pan with a polaroid camera, track the limo moving adjacent to her position, and finish up with a photo that doesn't cause blurring of the limo or the background ? According to the instructions, no. You have to hold the camera steady, breathe in, and "slow click" the shutter. And thats the instructions for a still subject.

 

 

I have my doubts about the Z film too. But for what it's worth Mary Ann Moorman's location is consistent in the different films to within a couple inches. It rules out the possibility of using film from any different location other than where she was.

The bushes right over Jean Hill are are barely visible as you noted. My thinking is  matching the size of the bushes by aligning all the markers to the left of Hill creates an accurate representation of the bushes and peristyle above Hill and Moorman. Using the markers to match the size of the bushes also overcomes any prospective difference between Hughes and z. The only thing left is the slight bit of parallax from the shrubs to the peristyle. But it only comes out to about 5 in.

The lack of blur in the photo is interesting. I've never tried to figure out how much movement you would expect to see from 15 ft at 8 miles an hour and I think a 1/50 of a second shutter time. I'm going to give it a look.

[John Butler]

I believe Mary Moorman had a pack of 8 Polaroids of which 4 are now extant.  The Glen McBride photo has clearly been altered.  That's 25% of the remaining photos.  I wonder how many others have been retouched.  50%?  75% or all.

Take this nice clear image Robin Unger has provided us.  By the way, Robin it is good that you have returned to posting.  Glad your back.

Is there anything wrong with this photo?  Maybe.  I recall seeing a video where Mary and Jean are standing in front of the Grassy Knoll shortly after the assassination.  Mary says, somewhat sullenly I think, that she was not wearing  white slacks.   I don't remember the video's name.  If any one does please make a comment.

The following crop from a photo may show something different.  IMO, it shows Mary with heels.  If you look at Robin's Polaroid she may have a print dress that comes just below her knee.  And, of course painted in slacks.  Or, maybe not.

We see Mary in flat shoes.  This crop shows Mary in what might be heels. 

OBTW, Jean Hill didn't have red slacks on that day.  She had a skirt on.  Her leg is seen bare here.  They could not catch everything and fix it.  And, the Babushka Lady is an insert.  That a look where Jean's shoulder is.  You can see where the BB Lady doesn't quite fit the cut out prepared for her.  It's either that or Jean has a huge head here.

Does that make 75% of Mary's Polaroids questionable?

 

 

  

Edited May 6, 2021 by John Butler

[Robin Unger]

It is obvious that Moorman was wearing white slacks dark blue coat, white socks and black flats

why do you persist with this "High Heels" rubbish.

 

[Tony Krome]

2 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

The lack of blur in the photo is interesting. I've never tried to figure out how much movement you would expect to see from 15 ft at 8 miles an hour and I think a 1/50 of a second shutter time. I'm going to give it a look.

Great, looking forward to it. Note how Mary photographed McBride. She has captured the subject but the background is blurry as to be expected. But the limo photo has no blur on the subject or background.

We have 2 options;

1. Moorman took the limo photo and the limo was stationary.

2. The photo was not taken with a Polaroid

[Chris Bristow]

38 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

Great, looking forward to it. Note how Mary photographed McBride. She has captured the subject but the background is blurry as to be expected. But the limo photo has no blur on the subject or background.

We have 2 options;

1. Moorman took the limo photo and the limo was stationary.

2. The photo was not taken with a Polaroid

She did say she thought the limo may have momentarily halted. From  other reports I think the limo may have halted just prior to the head shot and would be moving very slow at 315.

FYI for anyone interested. I just found that in the motorcycle photo she had stepped into the middle of the south lane near Brehms position for that photo.