Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mary Moorman location on Dealey Plaza

Recommended Posts

Hi to All!

On 20th Nov. 2003, an Experiment was carried out by some friends on Dealey Plaza.

The main goal of this Experiment was to verify accurately the real location of Mary Moorman when she took her famous polaroid #5.

Here is the link to read the Report and

see photographs related to The Experiment: http://users.skynet.be/copweb/labo/co2/co2.htm :D

Best regards from Belgium...

Edited by Marcel Dehaeseleer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Frankly, I cannot see for the life of me what the big problem is with why a select handful of researchers have a question as to where Mary Moorman stood? I believe this all started with the "film alteration" crowd. Let me explain ...

Moorman had said that she took one of her Ploaroids from in the street, but couldn't recall which one it was, so White mistakenly read the Nix, Muchmore and Bronson films as showing Jean and Mary both standing in the street and there was no turning back for Jack from that point on. Jack White also had heard Jean Hill say she stepped into the street when Kennedy came around the corner and thats all he wanted to hear to back up his desire to show Zapruder film alteration. I confronted Jack White about his mistake and all he did to rebutt the details handed to him as I recall was to post two things in response. One was a photo of an old shack that looked like an outhouse ... I guess that's where the idea that Moorman was standing in the street when she took her number five Polaroid had come to him. The other was a carefully edited audio/video clip of Hill saying as she pointed to the asphalt - "I stepped in the street" (end)

Lets examine this for a moment. If one goes and looks at Mary Moorman's affidavit taken within hours of the shooting they will find this to be what she said ...

VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86



Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D. 1963 personally appeared Mary Ann Moorman, Address: 2832 Ripplewood, Dallas. Age 31, Phone No. DA 1-9390.

Deposes and says

Mrs. Jean Hill and I were standing on the grass by the park on Elm Street between the underpass and the corner of Elm & Houston.

In Jean Hill's book she writes that as Kennedy came around the corner onto Elm Street that he was looking to the north side of the Street. Jean said she then jumped off the curb and into the street to get his attention by yelling for him to look her way so Mary could get his photograph. Jean said Kennedy did look in her direction even if she didn't know if it was her that had gotten him to do that. From Z133 to Z156 or so we see JFK did look to the south side of Elm Street, but by Z159 he has turned back towards the north side and had never looked Jean's way again. Jean Hill goes on to say that she thought better of being off the curb and that the SS would not like her getting so close and that's when a shot rang out. That shot is locked between the Betzner and Willis photos (Z186 and Z202).

Now how do we know Jean Hill got back out of the street after she thought the SS might not like her being so close? The answer can be found in several places, but the main source would be the Altgens number six photograph that shows Jean Hill and Mary Moorman's shadows barely making it over the curbstone. White refuses to understand the implication of this. Altgens took his photo at Z255/256, which is after Jean had first stepped into the street to get Kennedy to look her way. A picture is said to speak a thousand words, but in this instance, Mr. White would rather cast doubt on the photo than to admit his error. On Black Op Radio at WWW.Prouty.Org there is an interview of Jean Hill archived there. A caller to that show asked Jean Hill when it was she stepped off the curb and into the street and Jean told the chain of events as I have stated in this post. In Jean's own words she said that when the shooting started that she was back onto the grass. Bronson's slide taken around Z225 shows Jean in motion as she is backing up from the curb. Jack White was confronted with that Black Op interview and ignored its importance and offered the previously mentioned edited film clip in rebuttal. (Did I forget to mention that the film clip was edited so to have Jean keep repeating "I stepped into the street - I stepped into the street - I stepped into the street ...") :huh:

Another piece of evidence is the Moorman photograph itself. You see, researcher Bill Miller found that the standing height for a Dallas Police Motorcycle's windscreen was between 56" and 58" depending on it's adjustment setting at the time. White had Moorman's camera height shorter than the standing height of the cycles windshields and anyone looking at Moorman's photograph should see that Mary Moorman is looking over the top of the Martin and Hargis windshields. That's a simple observation concerning perpspective and how things look in a field of view when looking downward at an object. Miller invited researchers to do a simple test at their desk in which they would take two alike objects, offset them one in front of the other and view them from below their tallest point and then again above their tallest point to see how they stacked up in one's field of view. Jack White could not ever or did not want to ever understand this basic law of observation and continued to push his flawed claim that Moorman was standing in the street. What was amazing as I read over the evidence was that there were others who was doing just as White had done despite them being handed evidence to the contrary. I remember thinking that I could understand one person being mentally challenged when it came to perspective, but Fetzer, Mantik, Costella and others were also refusing to understand these simple key observations that a grade school art class teaches it's beginner students.

So far we have White and the Zapruder film alteration crowd ignoring Hill's affidavit, not understanding the chain of events as to Jean stepping off the curb to call to JFK before the shooting started and how that correlates with the Altgens #6 photo taken no leass than two shots into the shooting while showing both Jean and Mary's shadows coming from the grass and over the curbstone. Interesting, isn't it!

Then there was a matter of Groden and Miller using test subjects to stand in for Mary and Jean as filmed and photographed from Marie Muchmore's location. You see, the ground makes an abrupt slope to the curb which starts about 4 feet away from the street. Then the curb itself drops about 8 to 9 inches on top of that. When we look at Jean Hill's feet as seen in the Muchmore filme - we see her black shoes which could not be seen had she and Mary of stepped off the curb as the limo passed their location along the street. Groden and Miller's test images showed this quite clearly, but again the Zapruder film alteration crowd ignored the evidence put to them.

I won't cover every observation that showed White to be mistaken, but there is yet another one that totally ruined White's claim that Moorman was in the street when she took her #5 Polaroid. This was the White, Fetzer and Mantik recreation photograph. They claim they had Mary's location pinpointed and that they had shown exactly where Mary Moorman stood ... and in a way not known to them - they were right! They showed that Moorman was not in the street because their photograph was way off concerning the crucial gap between the corner of the pedestal and the corner of the pergola window in the background. Even to this day I have not heard White or Fetzer admit to their mistake, but again - a photo says a thousand words and I'll attach Miller's overlay of White's recreation photo with Mary Moorman's actual photograph and you can all be the judge for yourself.

The lesson of showing all of this is not to show that Mr. White can make a mistake, but to show what happens when you start with a conclusion first before following the evidence rather than letting the evidence lead you to a conclusion. It is no secret that Mr. White had been a promoter of film alteration long before he started concerning himself with where Moorman and Hill were standing during the shooting. The fact that people followed them and made the same simple mistakes says a lot for this approach and the power of suggestion, as well.

Below is Altgens #6 photograph which was taken after Jean Hill stepped off the curb and got Kennedy to look her way. Please note where her and Mary's shadows are now located at the curbstone.

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The White, Fetzer and Mantik recreation of the Moorman photograph location

If White had the correct location for Mary Moorman as she photographed JFK in the kill zone, then there should be no shifting taking place when his recreation photo is overlaid onto Moorman's actual photograph. The pergola window seen over the pedestal has been held in place on crossing vertical and horizontal lines for both photographs (White's and Moorman's) - watch how the pedestal shifts in relation to those lines. White got it so wrong that one should never have to argue the matter with anyone who has seen this overlay.

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I cannot see for the life of me what the big problem is with why a select handful of researchers have a question as to where Mary Moorman stood? I believe this all started with the "film alteration" crowd. Let me explain ...

<snip to preserve bandwidth>

It's NOT a big problem -- all the jaw jack'in is quite frankly over, certifying that Moorman5 happened at Z313. Of course no one can agree on the exact frame as attested by the 3 studies completed over the years. Might be 312, 313, 314,315, up to 319 -- some think the 3rd hit happened as late as what should be 358. Right where the Secret Service/FBI said it should be. That of course was when the 3 shot - 3 hit scenario was in vogue. Then, of course the Tague situation developed -- the SBT was born, the rest is history.

the so-called historians were and for the most part, NOW - asleep at the wheel on this one...

Thank GOD for the HWeisberg's, DLifton's, JFetzer's RDellaRosa's of the world.

Glad to see you here Marcel!

David G. Healy [waiting for Martin Schackelford to chime in] :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knowing when Moorman took her photograph isn't so hard. The key is watching when Hargis reaches a certain point past Moorman in the Zapruder film. It is between Z315 and Z316 that Matches his position in Moorman's photograph. I believe it was when Anthony Marsh did the math calculating the forward movement of the Hargis cycle that he found the correct position for Hargis to match the Zapruder film to Moorman's photo came at Z315.6.

Below is Zframe 313. Moorman's photo clearly shows Hargis to be on the underpass side of her when looking at Zapruder. In Z313 with Zapruder looking back at Moorman - Hargis is on the Houston Street side of Moorman. Hargis has not traveled west far enough at Z313 to get him on the underpass side of the line from Zapruder's camera to Moorman's. I really do not see why researchers should have trouble following this observation.

Edited by Larry Peters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now
  • Create New...