On 6/12/2012 12:01 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "Simple facts."<<<
>
> Tony,
>
> I was merely pointing out and attempting to emphasize this "simple
> fact" in my thread-starting post:
>
> Mary Ann Moorman had a choice of when to take her Polaroid photograph
> on 11/22/63 (the assassination notwithstanding)---
>
Her choice of when was also restricted by the fact that she had just
taken a picture of one of the cycle cops.
And her plan was to wait until the President was the closest to her.
Some people plan things and then do not react quickly enough when the
time comes.
> 1.) She could have chosen to take the picture while the President's
> car was still to her right (east), which would mean very likely
> capturing an image of JFK's and Jackie's faces (plus the Connallys
> too).
>
Sure, and not be able to see the President.
> or:
>
> 2.) She could wait and snap the shutter after the car has gone past
> her (to her left/west), which means she cannot possibly capture a
> "face" shot of anyone in the car (unless JFK or Jackie would be nice
> enough to turn sharply to their left and smile at her after the car
> has already gone by her).
>
That was not her plan.
> Mary chose option #2. And, IMO, that's just kind of strange.
>
NO she didn't. She chose to take the picture when the Presdident was
right in front of her.
> Those are the "simple facts" I was trying to stress, Tony. But, as
> always, Marsh has his "argue" button in the permanent "On" position,
> even for an inimportant thread like this one.
>
You did not state facts. You only stated speculation.
> I only started the topic because it's something I've always wondered
> about when thinking about Mary Moorman's photo.
>
Maybe you should get out into the real world some day and take a photo
with a Polaroid camera.
> Here's another way to look at it:
>
> If JFK had not been shot and killed right in front of Mary's camera
> lens, then her Polaroid picture would probably have been regarded as a
> pretty lousy photo (which it is, perspective-wise, when the
> assassination is removed from the equation).
>
Sure, it was a lousy photo, It was a lousy camera. It was not designed
for professional photographers. It was designed for housewives.
We would have had the best picture taken with the best camera if only
Stoughton had not been kicked out of the SS car. How come I never see
you complain about that? How come you always say that there were no
changes to the motorcade? Huh? Huh?
> If JFK had not been shot in Dealey Plaza, I wonder if Mary would have
> said this to her friends after taking the picture she took on November
> 22:
>
> Look at this great picture I took on Friday of the back of President
> Kennedy's head! Isn't this a great angle I got of the President? And
> just look at that great view of Jackie too! That pillbox hat is
> terrific, isn't it? And the back of her head is simply stunning!
>
A photo of the back of JFK's head is exactly what the conspiracy kooks
want to see to show where they think there was a hole in the back of his
head.
>
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-L83z3F_FExo/T9O4z82JSfI/AAAAAAAABpM/utf4KJ0h5zU/s1600/Mary-Moorman-Photo.jpg
>
How many hours did it take the press to publish the Moorman photo? Do
you think the CIA Ultra Top Secret photo lab in New York could have
altered it before the press published it? Even using the fastest spy jet
then to transport it back and forth?