Among the most important photographs taken during the assassination of JFK in Dealey Plaza on 22 November 1963 was taken by Mary Moorman, who used her Polaroid to snap a photo that has been taken to have occurred a fraction of a second after the shot that entered the vicinity of the right temple and blew his brains out to the left/rear. It has been the subject of intense debate in the past, including a lengthy study to which David Mantik, Jack White and I contributed. Here is one of Jack's studies:
The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003) but culminating in a series of studies by Larry Rivera, the new chairman of the OIC (Oswald Innocence Campaign), based upon interviews with the motorcycle escort officers that were recorded by Fred Newcomb in 1971, which have proven to be extraordinarily revealing:
Part 2 has now been broadcast, which further reinforces the proof that the JFK limousine was brought to a complete halt, during which Officer Bobby Hargis dismounted from his bike, rushed between the two limos and headed for the grassy knoll, while five Secret Service agents dismounted from the Queen Mary, surrounded the Lincoln, took a piece of skull from a young man and tossed it back into the Lincoln before it took off for Parkland Hospital, which it seems to me required as much as 20 or more seconds. Here is Part 2:
The Zapruder film, we now know, was taken to the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, 23 November 1963, as an 8mm, already split film (which had been developed in Dallas, TX), where the substitute, as a 16mm, not yet split film (which had been developed in Rochester, NY), was brought there on Sunday, 24 November 1963 and the film's substitution was effected. And now, thanks especially to new research by Larry Rivera, we have good reasons to question the authenticity of the Mooman, which further substantiates the use of photo fakery to conceal the true causes of the death of JFK.
Reconsidering the Moorman photographby Ralph Cinque
Joseph Backes implied something that makes sense, although I'm not sure he realizes the implications of it. Below is a paraphrase of what he said:
"Mary Moorman did not take her photo from the same location as the Babushka Lady. They were standing at different places and the angle of view they had was different."
Yes, indeed! That's exactly what I'm saying!
OBVIOUSLY, at that moment, Mary Moorman could not have taken a photo that was angularly the same as Babushka Lady. But likewise, she couldn't take one that was angularly the same as Marie Muchmore either. Yet, they are telling us that she did.
I don't know that we have a picture of her, but here is an animation someone made which shows approximately where she was when she filmed the assassination.
So, that's where Muchmore was at the relevant time. She had moved from Houston Street past the reflection pool up to the wall which separated the pool area from the grassy area. Her first name was Marie.
Marie Muchmore was filming at a diagonal similar to Babushka Lady except farther back.
Look at this again, and remember that the line for Muchmore keeps going back at that angle.
So, it makes sense that Babushka Lady and Marie Muchmore would capture the Kennedys very similarly if they shot at the same time, which they apparently did. So, it makes sense, from our knowledge of these ladies' positions, for the following to be true:
However, it does NOT make sense for this below to be true because of the angular differences of which we are aware:
So, why should we believe that it's true just because they say it is? They also tell us that Oswald was up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy. They also tell us that Lovelady was the Doorway Man when we can plainly see that that man looks like Oswald and is wearing Oswald's clothes. I really think it is time to reassess the origin of the Moorman photo.