Mary Moorman- Who Shot Mary’s Polaroid? Part V
Mary Moorman- Who Shot Mary’s Polaroid? Part V- Concluding Evidence
Let’s summarize briefly before we move on to the next part of this discussion.
In Part I, we discussed the various elements such as the motorcycle policeman’s windshield, the men on the steps, Bill Newman’s arm, the cutout appearance of the passenger side of the limo, etc. in Mary’s Polaroid which indicates the photo has been altered. This is a direct statement that Mary’s Polaroid is a fake. We discussed the reasons why the Babushka Lady and her doppelganger, the Lady in Blue, did not take Mary’s Photo.
In Part II, we talked about the reasons why you could eliminate the BB Lady, the Lady in Blue, Marie Muchmore, and Mary Moorman as the author of Mary’s Photo. For the BB Lady and the Lady in Blue, the reasons are different here than in Part I. At this point the discussion leaves us with an unknown photographer for Mary’s photo.
In Part III, we pointed out that Mary’s place or position on Elm Street is different across the various media and does not match the location she should be in to take her photo. We find different place positions for her in Zapruder, Bronson, Muchmore, and Nix. The difference in her size, appearance, and location on Elm Street is too great to be real. She is an inserted object in the various media mentioned.
In Part IV, we show there are drastic discrepancies in Mary and Jean’s appearance in the various assassination films and photos. We point out the modifications in their clothing which made it easier for the photo editors to insert them into and coordinate their appearance across the assassination films and photos. This difference in their appearance shouts fakery and photo insertion.
After all of this we are still left with a number of important questions. These are:
1. Who took Mary’s Polaroid?
2. Why was Mary’s Polaroid edited?
3. When President Kennedy was shot where were they located?
4. What did they look like on the day of the assassination?
5. What was their behavior like when the shooting occurred?
*Mary had other Polaroids that were fake- The McBride Polaroid and their portrait photos by Mary’s car
The answer to who took Mary’s Polaroid is a bit strange since I have eliminated her from taking her own picture. But, if you look at the situation correctly, I have not really eliminated her from taking her photo. I have eliminated her from taking her photo in front of the Bryan Pergola / Grassy Knoll.
I believe Mary took her photo but, half of it, the background was cut out, and another background was inserted from another photo. So, Mary is responsible for half of her photo, the foreground. Bill Newman is part of the foreground. Understanding the real location of Bill Newman is key to that. Before you go saying that’s nonsense and BS, read through the rest of the argument and give it a chance, remember the cut marks on the passenger side of the limousine. It is different and gets more different as we will go along from the main storyline of the Lone Gunman Theory. It is different from the accepted version that fills everyone’s head.
Who could have taken the background for Mary’s photo? I don’t know but, I have a strong suspect. That suspect is Ike Altgens, in fact I suspect Altgens for taking a lot of photos that some backgrounds from were used. Altgens can only be a co-conspirator in the assassination. If by some chance he didn’t help dummy up his photos then he certainly knew about it and kept quiet. Outside of Military Photographers a fair suspect is one the two men seen near Mary and Jean in the Elsie Dorman film. I believe Pierce Allman was one of the two.
Ike Altgens went into Dealey Plaza with different cameras, lens, and a camera box full of film. He went into the plaza early before the assassination that morning. He initially tried to take some photos from the Triple Underpass but, was turned away by the police. He had time to walk all over Dealey Plaza and take background photos before he took up his position near the NW corner of Main and Houston before the motorcade arrived.
He is credited with taking only 8 photos. That’s really not believable for a professional photographer with a box full of equipment. One fellow on the Educational Forum said he was once a news editor and if a photographer came back from such an important event with only 8 photos he would have fired him. My greatest reason for suspecting him is Altgens 5, Altgens 6, and Altgens 7 are all composite frauds. One of the Willis slides, Slide 1 is his. The “rarely seen” one published in 1978 by his home base, the Dallas Morning News is the same as Willis 1.
The next question was why was the Polaroid edited? Why were the various elements changed and most of all the background? The answers have to do with where Mary and Jean were standing and who was across Elm Street from them.
It is my belief that Mary and Jean were standing across Elm Street from the TSBD on the SW corner of Elm and Houston on the concrete area just before it ends heading west towards the Triple Underpass. Mary Moorman has never said this. She has always testified to being across from the Grassy Knoll. Jean Hill has said something different at different times. And, she fought bitterly to get her testimony saying something different heard at a Warren Commission hearing. She was placed under 15 months of FBI surveillance. But, later on she changed that and said basically what Mary Moorman said. I understand the reasons why.
Why would the two standing on the SW corner of Houston and Elm need to be changed across the various media. It is because of who was standing across the street. It has been said or hinted at by others that one of her Polaroids may have shown Lee Harvey Oswald in the TSBD doorway. You can’t frame Oswald if he’s across the street in the doorway and not in the Sniper’s Nest. You can’t frame Oswald if shooting occurs in front of the TSBD. The article The Prayer Man and John Martin explains the notion nicely with this frame and others.
John Martin’s film shows Lee Harvey Oswald directly across the street from where Mary and Jean stood. The object in the Prayer Man’s hands in the doorway of the TSBD is the same as shown here. It is a camera. The black figure to the right of Oswald across the street may even be her, Mary Moorman. If that is the case then Oswald would be in the position near Bill Newman and also be in the Polaroid.
This presents a problem for Bill Newman. He said in his 11-22-63 statement he was standing just west of the cement marker at the TSBD. The should be seen in this frame or just past where the people there are standing by the cement marker (monument).
To answer another question from the beginning this is where President Kennedy was first shot as his vehicle turned into the intersection. Several shots occurred there. These events are cut out of the Zapruder film with the missing frames. Shooting began for this part of the ambush on Houston Street in front of the Court Records Building. 8 assassination films have that section of their film cut out when the president passes by the Court Records Building and then skips to the intersection.
It continued until President Kennedy was shot in the head as the vehicle approached or just passed the SW corner of the TSBD. This is where Mary’s Polaroid was taken. Oswald was in it. The background had to be removed or the photo destroyed as one was.
Some witnesses claim the President was shot in the head as the vehicle turned onto Elm Street. Mary’s destroyed photo is the one where she more than likely heard the first shot. This would have been the first shot as the presidential limo entered Elm Street. Mary’s recollection of the shooting sequence is different from everyone else.
Mary and Jean were standing on the concrete across the street from the TSBD. Their place was across from the street where the Prayer Man is in the John Martin frame. Remember this location where the Reflecting Pool walk empties into the sidewalk. We will see Mary and Jean in that location in Elsie Dorman and Zapruder.
I surveyed 50 witnesses who were located the closest to the alleged Sniper’s Nest, in the intersection, and in the TSBD. I used only the testimony that they first gave to the authorities when possible. 25 out of 50 of these “ear” witnesses said they heard shooting when the presidential limousine turned into the intersection or was in front of the TSBD. There are more witnesses not related to this survey that have said that. The shooting occurred in the intersection and you can see that in the missing frames in the Zapruder Gap, between Z frames 132 and 133. Good luck with that!
Much has been made of the discrepancies in the appearance and attire of Mary Moorman and Jean Hill when compared across the various media such as Zapruder, Bronson, Nix, and Muchmore. What did they look like that day? Some folks over the years, along with me, have suggested other people in other films look very much like Mary and Jean. Next, are frames from Elsie Dorman showing one of these pair. Notice Linda Willis in the background. She said she ran down to Elm Street with her father, Phil Willis. He is not in the Dorman film.
The frame on the left shows a couple of women except for their attire are dead on images of Mary and Jean. Repainting the coats of these two ladies was not one of my smarter ideas but, it does show you what other people and I are talking about. I will take the blame for the editing. There are two more women in Elsie Dorman that are dead ringers for Mary and Jean. They are actually the same women in my opinion. They have just had their clothing altered to protect not the innocent but, the guilty.
This indicates the Dorman film was edited. If you look at all the dark painted or blanked out images and shots of an empty limousine you will understand this is an edited film abandoned during the editing process. This gives us two sets of Mary Moorman and Jean Hill. The two on the right has their coats repainted to their original colors. It is something to think about. But, it doesn’t get any better.
Actually, the Zapruder film has 3 sets of the ladies. It is these two women on the SW corner of Elm and Houston that are the two most important to consider. They are only seen in Zapruder. They are in position to be directly across the street from the Prayer Man, Lee Harvey Oswald. This is the same location mentioned in the Martin frame. They are in the same position as the last couple seen in the Elsie Dorman frame. This last couple seen in Elsie Dorman is transformed into the two women in black seen in Zapruder.
Who do you believe to decide who was standing in this location? Has the clothing of these two been altered? Look at the deeper color of black for the taller lady’s coat as versus the shorter lady’s coat. This is just for folks who lack close color discrimination. I have brightened the photo.
Can you see the difference? Can you see the lady in the tan coat’s companion hidden behind her? She’s taller and you should see part of her head. Can you? Can we make them appear more like Mary and Jean as was done in the earlier examples?
Since I have colored the two women’s coats in the frame on the right we can easily see 3 sets of Mary Moorman and Jean Hill. Each set was disguised. The frame on the right is Z frame 153 which you can blow up for easier viewing. I use Costella’s Zapruder frames.
Why 3 sets of Mary and Jean. I don’t know unless it is for easier identification purposes for different teams of photo editors to work on various parts of the film. Using easily recognizable figures in a standard script would make it easier to keep the editors in tune with each other.
There are 153 frames that have to be individually altered to get to that point. That is a tremendous amount of art work. Remember, the discussion of Altgens 5 where Jack White indicated the crowd at the Elm Street crosswalk in the intersection was different from the crowd in Zapruder, not one was the same. Remember the BB Lady and the Lady in Blue in Mannequin Row? There were many more examples than the ones I have listed. It is a lot of work adjusting the various images in each frame.
The SW corner is a stage set with many figures altered, added to, and subtracted from the stage. And, this is useful in coordinating with other films such as Elsie Dorman. 3 sets of Moorman and Hill implies that 3 different films or 3 copies of the Zapruder film was used to build the show stage area of the SW corner of Elm and Houston Street. 3 different films might be more correct because of the different viewing angles of these couples.
The grand deception on Elm Street involving the framing of Lee Harvey Oswald called for a tremendous amount of photo work, art work, and witness manipulation to make that pig fly. And, it has flown for 54 years.
Jean Hill was kept under FBI surveillance (harassment) for 15 months. She wouldn’t play ball as Mary Moorman did. She was telling a story the authorities didn’t want to hear. She claimed she and Mary were standing on the SW corner of Elm and Houston just across from the SW corner of the TSBD when the president was shot. She told this to the Warren Commission.
Arlen Specter, her interrogator, treated her in a harsh manner as a hostile witness. He drew a map of where she said she and Mary were standing. Then, when he realized what he had done he named this sketch map as Hill Exhibit No. 5 and classified it Top Secret and locked it away for many years.
This particular piece of evidence was hidden for many years. Then, once it was brought into the light it has not made a dent in what people think. I don’t understand why this piece of devastating evidence is ignored.
Do you think President Trump’s releasing of the last JFK documents will make an impact on the assassination and the understanding of the assassination? I am not optimistic.
This is the sketch map:
Walt missed it in his comment. A is Jean and Mary’s location. X is the location of the president. The circled area across the street is the group of people standing in front of the SW corner of the TSBD. This group should have Bill Newman in it. This group would show people before we see the black people photographed there by Robert Croft. The “A” designation corresponds to the ladies in black seen in the Zapruder film on the SW corner.
Notice in the frames above that the shorter lady of the two in the Elsie Dorman frames and the early Zapruder frames is not wearing white socks or flat black shoes that can be rendered by a simple black line. She is wearing what a woman wore in those days, dresses or skirts and high heels. White socks make it easier to put a figure into the grassy surface and then paint a shoe.
There is another point that bothers me about Mary’s location down by the Grassy Knoll standing in the grassy area across Elm Street from the Grassy Knoll. This is it had rained that morning. The ground was soaked and muddy. We know this from various witness statements such as Tosh Plumlee. A woman in high heels would not have walked out into the muddy grassy area that morning or at noon.
Another point to make here is that when Mary and Jean were taken to the Sheriff’s Office they were photographed many times that afternoon. None of the photos show Mary or Jean in a full length version. All we see is their upper torsos. In Mary’s case we never see enough of her to determine whether she is wearing a dress or a blouse. Because of where her waist is I would say from the picture on the right it is a dress. She appears to be wearing a shirt waist dress popular at that time. The way these women are dressed invalidates the Zapruder film.
If you look at her photo image in the various media you can often see speckled shadows under her raincoat suggesting shadowed white slacks. But, it also suggests a print or Paisley dress such as seen below.
I challenge you to find a full length photo of their bodies at the Sheriff’s Office.
Here is Jean Hill at the Sheriff’s Office. This is from Denis Morisette’s video Moorman in Sheriff’s Office. It appears that she is wearing a straight skirt or A-line I think they were called. Whatever, she doesn’t appear to the wearing slacks. And, if you look closely the skirt is not white. She is not wearing white slacks.
The upper half or background had to be removed from Mary’s Polaroid due to Lee Harvey Oswald and the TSBD being in the background. If this was allowed to stand then he could have never been arrested and put into jail so he could be murdered later. Case closed.
Another problem Mary has in her Polaroids is the portrait Polaroid that Jean Hill took. It is in the Polaroid hanging to within an inch or so from her ankles. In may other photos it is just below her knees or mid-calf and never to her ankles. You can try to explain this by hunched shoulders but, it is just another irrational Lone Nut argument.
Another thing that makes the two ladies in black Mary Moorman and Jean Hill is there behavior. If you read their statements as witnesses you will see that they did certain things. Both were in agreement on these behaviors they said they did. Jean Hill said she waved vigorously at the President and called out “Hey, Mr. President we want to take your picture”. Jean Hill said she called out to the President to attract his attention away from a group of people in front of the TSBD to her and Mary. This group is circled in Hill Exhibit No. 5. There is a blurry, very blurry photo of this group attributed to Robert Croft.
Mary Moorman ran out into the street and took President Kennedy’s picture just before the head shot and hearing the rifle shot. You can see this behavior from Z frame 133 to about Z frame 173.
I say she took her picture before the head shot for this reason. A rifle projectile travels close to 3 times the speed of sound. At that distance the impact would have been nearly instantaneous. She would have seen the head shot and then heard the rifle shot. The rifle round would have traveled faster than her camera worked and she would have captured the head wound before the sound. If she is correct the head shot occurred directly after or, missed, or, there wasn’t one.
The behavior mentioned above you will not see in Z frames 287 to 317 or so. The Moorman / Hill duo shown in these frames barely move. Granted, 30 frames are less than two seconds in length. Jean claps her hands and continues to stare stupidly up the street as the President passes. Mary never reaches a proper angle of view where her camera can take her photo. Go back to Zapruder frames 133 to 173 and monitor the behavior of the two women in black on the SW corner of Elm and Houston. They are Mary and Jean in disguise.
In the Moorman frames of the Zapruder film and subsequent frames we never see anyone on the passenger side of the presidential limousine. We don’t see Bill Newman and family. We don’t see Motorcycle Policemen. We don’t see the three men on the steps. What we do have is an unobstructed view of the limousine and the passengers inside. How nice.
Her photo was taken in the intersection of Elm and Houston Street in front of the TSBD. Because of what it showed it had to be seized and modified. This was immediately done by an agent “Featherstone” or a newsman Jim Featherston. The photo was out of her possession many times for lengthy periods of time that afternoon, plenty of time for corrections.
From the many things discussed in this article, we can conclude with a high degree of certainty Mary Moorman’s Polaroid is a fake. It is a photo that was adapted to tell a different story than the real one that occurred in Dealey Plaza. Mary’s Polaroid was adapted to support the Lone Gunman Theory that the Warren Commission used to manipulate and lie to the American public about how their president died that day.
I wonder what the original photo showed? Mary and Jean were standing right across the street from Prayer Man on the Elm St. curb taking photos of the president . Would her Polaroid establish the identity of the Prayer Man. Was it Lee Harvey Oswald or a Lee Harvey Oswald double?