Jump to content
The Education Forum

The (Un-Doctored) Moorman Photo


Recommended Posts

I have just come across this supposedly un-doctored photo (Moorman) which shows a white cone shape eminating from the right front tempral area of Kennedy's head, this is supposed to be confirming evidence that there was in fact a shooter behind the picket fence area being that this cone points directly to that spot.

Does anyone else know anything about this photo and the conclusions it is supposed to set fourth?

Thanks Scott

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/moorman-dennis.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have just come across this supposedly un-doctored photo (Moorman) which shows a white cone shape eminating from the right front tempral area of Kennedy's head, this is supposed to be confirming evidence that there was in fact a shooter behind the picket fence area being that this cone points directly to that spot.

Does anyone else know anything about this photo and the conclusions it is supposed to set fourth?

Thanks Scott

Scott, The original Moorman photo ... nor any of the copies made from the original Moorman photo show a cone, thus I would think it is a defect in that one picture whether it got there naturally or if someone purposely placed it there. Moorman's photo was filmed for TV not 30 minutes following the assassination and no white cone is seen either. If one thinks about it - why would a cone have the point pointed towards the knoll for if it was to prespresent blood spatter spray - the further from the skull the debris is ... the wider the pattern would get. I hope this information helps.

By the way, how did you come to the conclusion that the photo you mentioned was "undoctored"?

Thanks,

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have just come across this supposedly un-doctored photo (Moorman) which shows a white cone shape eminating from the right front tempral area of Kennedy's head, this is supposed to be confirming evidence that there was in fact a shooter behind the picket fence area being that this cone points directly to that spot.

Does anyone else know anything about this photo and the conclusions it is supposed to set fourth?

Thanks Scott

Scott, The original Moorman photo ... nor any of the copies made from the original Moorman photo show a cone, thus I would think it is a defect in that one picture whether it got there naturally or if someone purposely placed it there. Moorman's photo was filmed for TV not 30 minutes following the assassination and no white cone is seen either. If one thinks about it - why would a cone have the point pointed towards the knoll for if it was to prespresent blood spatter spray - the further from the skull the debris is ... the wider the pattern would get. I hope this information helps.

By the way, how did you come to the conclusion that the photo you mentioned was "undoctored"?

Thanks,

Bill

Bill, I am not very use to posting on forums and I suppose I have worked this one kind of backwards, I should have posted the following link with my original post!

Well, better late then never !

http://www.sheboygan-press.com/apps/pbcs.d.../605250559/1973

Thanks for understanding, Scott

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, I am not very use to posting on forums and I suppose I have worked this one kind of backwards, I should have posted the following link with my original post!

Well, better late then never !

http://www.sheboygan-press.com/apps/pbcs.d.../605250559/1973

Thanks for understanding, Scott

It's ok, Scott. However, the same rule still applies ... If an original image does not show a defect (in this case a triangle) while still in Moorman's hands or prints made immediately thereafter, then this guy has a latter print that somehow got something on it by accident or it was purposely put on there. An example would be like this ... one see's a bowl of apples and only one has a bite taken out of it while the rest do not. Should one not think that the apple with the bite out of it occurred later after it was picked or should he think they all had bites out of them while formed on the tree, but somehow healed themselves except for the one apple. Logically there should only be one answer.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Bill Miller or ??? penned:

[...]

An example would be like this ... one see's a bowl of apples and only one has a bite taken out of it while the rest do not. Should one not think that the apple with the bite out of it occurred later after it was picked or should he think they all had bites out of them while formed on the tree, but somehow healed themselves except for the one apple. Logically there should only be one answer.

Bill

Martha, I do believe Larry Peters has returned and making a comeback...! Thanks for the devestating insight...

Edited by David G. Healy
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...