Thomas Graves Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 (edited) [...] Moorman saw the head snap but didn't discern it as such in looking through the camera viewfinder. All she knew is that she saw JFK "sort of jump." ___________________________ Ron, Excellent observation (on your part, not hers...). --Thomas ___________________________ Edited February 17, 2007 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Hello Ron I feel certain that you know why, when I refer to Dealey Plaza eyewitness testimony, that I make a point to only refer to testimony given on the afternoon of 11/22/63. The most IMMEDIATE memory, before it has had a chance to be influenced by coercion, innuendo and other social and politcal interests. The Newmans also changed their testimony "somewhat" on the evening of 11/22 from what they stated immediately after the assassination. Why do you and some others "prefer" to use "changed testimony" to make a point ? That really shouldn't be posed as a question as the reason is quite obvious! As is the tactic ! Charlie Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 (edited) SORRY Deleted in the interest of maintaining forum harmony. Charlie Black Edited February 17, 2007 by Charles Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Newman was somehow coerced or influenced on the afternoon of 11/22 to say JFK "fell back"? Moorman was somehow coerced or influenced a day later to tell the FBI that JFK "sort of jumped"? Who or what influenced them to do this? What was the purpose? It doesn't make any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Newman was somehow coerced or influenced on the afternoon of 11/22 to say JFK "fell back"? Moorman was somehow coerced or influenced a day later to tell the FBI that JFK "sort of jumped"? Who or what influenced them to do this? What was the purpose? It doesn't make any sense. Hello Ron It "makes sense" to me that regarding "eyewitness" testimony, I place most value on the most immediate testimony of a witness before other factors have had an opportunity to influence and possibly confuse them. Charlie Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 I agree that immediate testimony is the best, and here we are talking about fairly "immediate" testimony of three of the closest witnesses. And I simply don't see why they would say that JFK fell back or sort of jumped if that's not what they saw. What did anyone say prior to these statements that would have influenced them? Who else said JFK fell back or jumped? I see no reason to question what they say. If they said I saw a bright halo of blood, and one streak of debris shoot straight up and slightly foward, and a big flap open on the side of JFK's head, then I would say they had definitely been influenced by something. But I see no grounds for suspecting influence in "he fell back" or "sort of jumped." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antti Hynonen Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Ron Ecker Posted Today, 02:34 PM Newman was somehow coerced or influenced on the afternoon of 11/22 to say JFK "fell back"? Moorman was somehow coerced or influenced a day later to tell the FBI that JFK "sort of jumped"? Who or what influenced them to do this? What was the purpose? It doesn't make any sense. The way I see it, "first round" testimony is the cleanest. Later testimony will always include something they read or heard in the news or from other testimonies. I believe that in situations like this, it is a human characteristic to want to give a thorough evaluation of what happened and the longer the time period between the event and the statement, the more 3rd party information it will include. That later testimony is kind of a realisation "Oh yeah, that's what happened". It may well be an accurate description of what actually took place, but it is not only what the witness saw, but it includes a little extra that makes sense to them. On another note, this makes the lack of a 1960's depostition by DCM and Umbrella man seem a little suspicious.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 17, 2007 Author Share Posted February 17, 2007 Newman was somehow coerced or influenced on the afternoon of 11/22 to say JFK "fell back"? Moorman was somehow coerced or influenced a day later to tell the FBI that JFK "sort of jumped"? Who or what influenced them to do this? What was the purpose? It doesn't make any sense. Newman was on the NORTH side of the street, and from there, JFK FELL BACK. Moorman and Hill were on the SOUTH side of the street, and to them JFK FELL FORWARD. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 The way I see it, "first round" testimony is the cleanest.... Absolutely. And that can be seen very clearly in the early evidence and reports, versus the later scrubbed reports, of JFK Jr's murder. ...Later testimony will always include something they read or heard in the news or from other testimonies.... And/or later testimony will yield to intimidation and coercion from one of the regime agencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Newman was on the NORTH side of the street, and from there, JFK FELL BACK. I doubt that Newman was thinking about north, south, west, or east. To fall back is to fall back, that is, in a backward direction. If Newman meant that JFK fell south, that is, away from Newman, then he would have said "fell over." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Ron Ecker Posted Today, 02:34 PM Newman was somehow coerced or influenced on the afternoon of 11/22 to say JFK "fell back"? Moorman was somehow coerced or influenced a day later to tell the FBI that JFK "sort of jumped"? Who or what influenced them to do this? What was the purpose? It doesn't make any sense. The way I see it, "first round" testimony is the cleanest. Later testimony will always include something they read or heard in the news or from other testimonies. I believe that in situations like this, it is a human characteristic to want to give a thorough evaluation of what happened and the longer the time period between the event and the statement, the more 3rd party information it will include. That later testimony is kind of a realisation "Oh yeah, that's what happened". It may well be an accurate description of what actually took place, but it is not only what the witness saw, but it includes a little extra that makes sense to them. On another note, this makes the lack of a 1960's depostition by DCM and Umbrella man seem a little suspicious.... Absolutely. I researched the psychology journals and found that witnesses who lie actually forget the truth, the lying erodes their ability to remember accurately what they have lied about. This is first class evidence of tampering. Also interesting about the Bell and Moorman overlay (on another thread today) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 (edited) I agree that immediate testimony is the best, and here we are talking about fairly "immediate" testimony of three of the closest witnesses. And I simply don't see why they would say that JFK fell back or sort of jumped if that's not what they saw. What did anyone say prior to these statements that would have influenced them? Who else said JFK fell back or jumped? I see no reason to question what they say. If they said I saw a bright halo of blood, and one streak of debris shoot straight up and slightly foward, and a big flap open on the side of JFK's head, then I would say they had definitely been influenced by something. But I see no grounds for suspecting influence in "he fell back" or "sort of jumped." **************************************************** Look at it this way, and take some other factors into consideration, such as where the witnesses were standing at the time, from what height, and even more important, from what angle their vision was viewing it. For instance, what might appear to someone across the street from where Moorman and Hill were standing, observing the limo coming towards them, at a certain angle on a sight-line, might appear as falling to the side, back to the left. Whereas, on Moorman and Hill's side of the street and from their angle of sight, what might have appeared to be a falling forward, may actually have been due to the limo slowing down as it was advancing past them, causing a seemingly forward pitch, due to the the brakes being applied, at that moment following the first round of shots. As far as the "jump up" statement, if you remember from the film, when the limo starts to emerge from behind the freeway sign, JFK appears to have both hands clutched in front of him, in what appears to be at throat level, with arms and elbows extended laterally [out to the sides]. Could this have possibly been the reaction of what Moorman and Hill describe as "jump up" and might have accounted for the lateral extension of the arms? Edited February 17, 2007 by Terry Mauro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 (edited) The long and short of it, IMO, is that this thread does do not support Z film alteration theory. Moorman saw something happen with JFK's body or she wouldn't say the next day, to FBI agents, that "he sort of jumped" at the time of the head shot (not previously when his elbows went up). What I'm sure she saw, imperfectly through a camera viewfinder, is what we see unobstructed from a different angle in the Z film. Perhaps someone could get Moorman's own opinion of what she said or saw, in light of the tape Lifton found, since I believe she still lives in Dallas. BTW, as I've said before, Mary Moorman was a babe. Edited February 17, 2007 by Ron Ecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 The long and short of it, IMO, is that this thread does do not support Z film alteration theory. Moorman saw something happen with JFK's body or she wouldn't say the next day, to FBI agents, that "he sort of jumped" at the time of the head shot (not previously when his elbows went up). What I'm sure she saw, imperfectly through a camera viewfinder, is what we see unobstructed from a different angle in the Z film.Perhaps someone could get Moorman's own opinion of what she said or saw, in light of the tape Lifton found, since I believe she still lives in Dallas. BTW, as I've said before, Mary Moorman was a babe. ****************************************************** "BTW, as I've said before, Mary Moorman was a babe." She definitely was one of the prettier girls Dallas is noted for. But, I don't remember any mention of the head wound as having transpired at that point, in the transcript. I can understand Moorman's overall view of the scene having been compromised through the narrow F.O.V. from which she was focussing her camera. But, Jean Hill didn't make mention of it, either. At least, in that transcript. Maybe, it was erased? Although, they do make mention of the first one or two shots, the slowing of the vehicle, and the race to get out of there. Apparently, they were too shell-shocked [no pun intended] to comprehend the following fusillade, as it was occurring, accompanied by the head shot and spray of brain matter. Maybe, it was too traumatic, or too graphic, and they simply blocked it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted February 18, 2007 Share Posted February 18, 2007 (edited) The long and short of it, IMO, is that this thread does do not support Z film alteration theory. Moorman saw something happen with JFK's body or she wouldn't say the next day, to FBI agents, that "he sort of jumped" at the time of the head shot (not previously when his elbows went up). What I'm sure she saw, imperfectly through a camera viewfinder, is what we see unobstructed from a different angle in the Z film.Perhaps someone could get Moorman's own opinion of what she said or saw, in light of the tape Lifton found, since I believe she still lives in Dallas. BTW, as I've said before, Mary Moorman was a babe. ****************************************************** "BTW, as I've said before, Mary Moorman was a babe." She definitely was one of the prettier girls Dallas is noted for. But, I don't remember any mention of the head wound as having transpired at that point, in the transcript. I can understand Moorman's overall view of the scene having been compromised through the narrow F.O.V. from which she was focussing her camera. But, Jean Hill didn't make mention of it, either. At least, in that transcript. Maybe, it was erased? Although, they do make mention of the first one or two shots, the slowing of the vehicle, and the race to get out of there. Apparently, they were too shell-shocked [no pun intended] to comprehend the following fusillade, as it was occurring, accompanied by the head shot and spray of brain matter. Maybe, it was too traumatic, or too graphic, and they simply blocked it out. Once again, A Jean Hill interview, less than 1 hour after the assassination. Earliest I have come up with. Added: Interview with Bill Newman that day chris Edited February 18, 2007 by Chris Davidson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now