Anybody Else Ever Wonder Why....?

[David Von Pein]

....Mary Moorman waited until after President Kennedy's limousine had
gone past her on Elm Street to take her now-famous assassination
photo?

Since Mary's camera was a Polaroid, she could only take one photo
every ten seconds, but for some reason she waited until the car
completely passed her position to snap the shutter, so that she got a
picture of the back of JFK's and Jackie's heads.

She could have just as easily snapped the picture a few seconds
earlier and she then would have had a much better image of JFK's face
and Jackie's face, rather than capturing the back of their heads. (Of
course, if she had snapped the shutter a few seconds earlier, Moorman
would have captured an injured JFK and a bewildered Jackie.)

As things turned out, of course, Moorman's picture is great for
conspiracy theorists, who have turned her grainy black-and-white image
into a springboard for their "second gunman" conspiracy theories.
CTers have combed the background of the picture and have "found"
numerous mysterious plotters and gun-toting assassins who aren't
really there at all.

But from Mary Moorman's photographic point-of-view on Elm Street in
Dallas' Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, I haven't been able to
logically figure out just why in the world Mary preferred a picture of
the back of the head of the President of the United States instead of
a photo that would have looked something like this one below
(perspective-wise and angle-wise):

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TPipQcMQBFI/AAAAAAAAHUw/bwMLX-cX4s8/s1600/Frame_From_Jefferies_Film.jpg

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/jean-hill-and-mary-moorman.html

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/9/2012 8:27 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> ....Mary Moorman waited until after President Kennedy's limousine had
> gone past her on Elm Street to take her now-famous assassination
> photo?
>

Silly. She TRIED to take her photo when the limo was the closest to her,
but it takes a few milliseconds to press the button.

> Since Mary's camera was a Polaroid, she could only take one photo
> every ten seconds, but for some reason she waited until the car
> completely passed her position to snap the shutter, so that she got a
> picture of the back of JFK's and Jackie's heads.
>
> She could have just as easily snapped the picture a few seconds
> earlier and she then would have had a much better image of JFK's face
> and Jackie's face, rather than capturing the back of their heads. (Of
> course, if she had snapped the shutter a few seconds earlier, Moorman
> would have captured an injured JFK and a bewildered Jackie.)
>

Wong. A few seconds earlier the limo would be too far away.

> As things turned out, of course, Moorman's picture is great for
> conspiracy theorists, who have turned her grainy black-and-white image
> into a springboard for their "second gunman" conspiracy theories.
> CTers have combed the background of the picture and have "found"
> numerous mysterious plotters and gun-toting assassins who aren't
> really there at all.
>
> But from Mary Moorman's photographic point-of-view on Elm Street in
> Dallas' Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, I haven't been able to
> logically figure out just why in the world Mary preferred a picture of
> the back of the head of the President of the United States instead of
> a photo that would have looked something like this one below
> (perspective-wise and angle-wise):
>

Maybe because you've never used a Polaroid camera yourself.

> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TPipQcMQBFI/AAAAAAAAHUw/bwMLX-cX4s8/s1600/Frame_From_Jefferies_Film.jpg
>
> http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/jean-hill-and-mary-moorman.html
>

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Wong. A few seconds earlier the limo would be too far away." <<<

Therefore, it was much better to wait until the car passed her by, so
that all that she is going to get is a nice picture of the back of
Kennedy's head.

Hilarious, Tony.

>>> "She TRIED to take her photo when the limo was the closest to her, but
it takes a few milliseconds to press the button." <<<

Hilarious #2.

[r2bz...@sbcglobal.net]

> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TPipQcMQBFI/AAAAAAAAHUw/bwMLX-c...
>
> http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/jean-hill-and-mar...


***Maybe when the limo was near side on to Moorman, Jackie was leaning
in toward JFK, blocking a good view of him from her vantage point.
Additionally, JFK was slumped over, not smiling, and was thus not
offering a photogenic subject to photograph.

***Ron Judge

[Jason Burke]

Or, wait for it.

Maybe Mary Moorman was in on it! Yeah, that's right. She needed to take
a picture so that the conspirators would have proof. Yeah, that's it.
Then she was supposed to give it to the conspirators but things got
fouled up along the way.

Luckily, she never talked about the conspirators, huh?

[Jason Burke]

On 6/10/2012 5:35 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> On 6/9/2012 8:27 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>> ....Mary Moorman waited until after President Kennedy's limousine had
>> gone past her on Elm Street to take her now-famous assassination
>> photo?
>>
>
> Silly. She TRIED to take her photo when the limo was the closest to her,
> but it takes a few milliseconds to press the button.

I'm sure you realize how far an object will travel in "a few
milliseconds" at 8-9 MPH.

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly. Mary tried to take her photo when the limo was going to be
closest to her. She had no way to predict the exact millisecond that the
bullet hit his head.

[Anthony Marsh]

Simple facts.

[everet...@gmail.com]

From what I remember of Polaroid cameras, they didn't really take an
"instant" photo. Wasn't there a delay? Perhaps she had pressed the button
at what would have been the appropriate time to capture the ideal image of
JFK, but the mechanism didn't respond instantly. Instead, capturing the
back of the heads of the car's occupants. Mind you, this is all based on
my foggy memory of Polaroid "instant" cameras.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "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)---

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).

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).

Mary chose option #2. And, IMO, that's just kind of strange.

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.

I only started the topic because it's something I've always wondered
about when thinking about Mary Moorman's photo.

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).

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!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-L83z3F_FExo/T9O4z82JSfI/AAAAAAAABpM/utf4KJ0h5zU/s1600/Mary-Moorman-Photo.jpg

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, but you are thinking more about how long it took before you could
see the developed photo. As I said before the delay of the button is
only milliseconds. Her photo was exposed exactly 2 Zapruder frames after
the bullet hit his head. at 18.3 frames per second that is only 109
milliseconds.

[Anthony Marsh]

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?

[David Von Pein]

>>> "How come you always say that there were no changes to the motorcade?"
<<<

Because there weren't any changes to the motorcade ROUTE (which is the
thing that CTers keep harping on the most when it comes to the motorcade).
And the Dallas papers of 11/19/63 prove there were no "last minute"
changes to the motorcade route.

>>> "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?" <<<

That's got nothing to do with this thread at all. Why did you even
bring up photo alteration here?


>>> "She [Moorman] chose to take the picture when the President was right
in front of her." <<<

Then she missed.

Also, listen to what Mary said to CBS-TV in 1964 (fourth video down,
at 1:30):

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/jean-hill-and-mary-moorman.html

"I took the camera and aimed it--focused it--and stood there and
looked through it for quite a few seconds because I wanted to be sure they
were looking at me." -- Mary Moorman; 1964


In Summary:

This thread that I started is totally meaningless. I admit that. It's just
something that had been going through my head for some time, and I wanted
to put my thoughts about it down on "e-paper" (for my
archives--naturally). So I did. Nothing more elaborate than that.

I just think it's kind of odd that Mary Moorman chose to snap her now-
famous photo of JFK at the time she did choose to take it, because from
all of the available comments made by Miss Moorman herself that I have
been able to obtain, it would certainly seem (even with the mandatory
10-second interval that her Polaroid camera required between pictures)
that Mary could certainly have taken her photo of JFK's car prior to the
time when she did take it.

You can stop arguing with me about this now, Tony. I'm done with it. I've
said what I have to say.

Bye.

===============================

BONUS MOORMAN INTERVIEW (FROM MAY 2011):

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/mary-moorman-interview.html

===============================

[burgundy]

On Jun 12, 5:07 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "How come you always say that there were no changes to the motorcade?"
>
> <<<
>
> Because there weren't any changes to the motorcade ROUTE (which is the
> thing that CTers keep harping on the most when it comes to the motorcade).
> And the Dallas papers of 11/19/63 prove there were no "last minute"
> changes to the motorcade route.
>
> >>> "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?" <<<
>
> That's got nothing to do with this thread at all. Why did you even
> bring up photo alteration here?
>
> >>> "She [Moorman] chose to take the picture when the President was right
>
> in front of her." <<<
>
> Then she missed.
>
> Also, listen to what Mary said to CBS-TV in 1964 (fourth video down,
> at 1:30):
>

> http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/jean-hill-and-mar...

>
>       "I took the camera and aimed it--focused it--and stood there and
> looked through it for quite a few seconds because I wanted to be sure they
> were looking at me." -- Mary Moorman; 1964
>
> In Summary:
>
> This thread that I started is totally meaningless. I admit that. It's just
> something that had been going through my head for some time, and I wanted
> to put my thoughts about it down on "e-paper" (for my
> archives--naturally). So I did. Nothing more elaborate than that.
>
> I just think it's kind of odd that Mary Moorman chose to snap her now-
> famous photo of JFK at the time she did choose to take it, because from
> all of the available comments made by Miss Moorman herself that I have
> been able to obtain, it would certainly seem (even with the mandatory
> 10-second interval that her Polaroid camera required between pictures)
> that Mary could certainly have taken her photo of JFK's car prior to the
> time when she did take it.
>
> You can stop arguing with me about this now, Tony. I'm done with it. I've
> said what I have to say.
>
> Bye.
>
> ===============================
>
> BONUS MOORMAN INTERVIEW (FROM MAY 2011):
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/mary-moorman-interview.html
>
> ===============================

Anyone remember Moorman and Jean Hill trying to get a photo of some
cop they were hot for???? Maybe Hargis???

[John McAdams]

On 12 Jun 2012 22:46:03 -0400, burgundy <WBurg...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Jun 12, 5:07�pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>> "How come you always say that there were no changes to the motorcade?"
>>
>>

>> ===============================
>>
>> BONUS MOORMAN INTERVIEW (FROM MAY 2011):
>>
>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/mary-moorman-interview.html
>>
>> ===============================
>
>Anyone remember Moorman and Jean Hill trying to get a photo of some
>cop they were hot for???? Maybe Hargis???

Jean Hill in her book said she was having an affair with one "J.B.
Marshall." Actually, the cop she describes is B.J. Martin.

Apparently, this was a rather superficial attempt to avoid naming an
individual as involved in an adulterous affair.

A Dallas source of mine (I'd have to do a lot of digging to see
whether this was on the record) says that, yes, there apparently was
an extra-marital affair.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jhill.htm

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/12/2012 6:07 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "How come you always say that there were no changes to the motorcade?"
> <<<
>
> Because there weren't any changes to the motorcade ROUTE (which is the
> thing that CTers keep harping on the most when it comes to the motorcade).
> And the Dallas papers of 11/19/63 prove there were no "last minute"
> changes to the motorcade route.
>

Now you are starting to get it. You need to qualify it correctly.
Which you just did.

>
>>>> "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?"<<<
>
> That's got nothing to do with this thread at all. Why did you even
> bring up photo alteration here?
>

It's a type of Reductio Ad Absurdum.
If the alterations think they can get away with claiming that some Ultra
Top Secret CIA photo lab in New York can alter the Zapruder film within
a few hours before others start seeing it, could they go farther and
that it happened to the Moorman photo or the Altgens photo which were
published shortly after the assassination.
And I wonder if YOU have to be an alterationist claiming that the
conspiray airbrushed the Moorman photo to put a shooter on the grassy
knoll since you claim you can see anyone there in your copy of the
Moorman photo. Are you an alterationist? If not then you have to admit
that someone was there behind the fence. And don't try to weasel out
like the WC defender who claimed that Black Dog Man was a tree trunk!

>
>>>> "She [Moorman] chose to take the picture when the President was right
> in front of her."<<<
>
> Then she missed.
>
> Also, listen to what Mary said to CBS-TV in 1964 (fourth video down,
> at 1:30):
>
> http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/jean-hill-and-mary-moorman.html
>
> "I took the camera and aimed it--focused it--and stood there and
> looked through it for quite a few seconds because I wanted to be sure they
> were looking at me." -- Mary Moorman; 1964
>
>
> In Summary:
>
> This thread that I started is totally meaningless. I admit that. It's just
> something that had been going through my head for some time, and I wanted
> to put my thoughts about it down on "e-paper" (for my
> archives--naturally). So I did. Nothing more elaborate than that.
>

Nothing wrong with that as long as you remember the underlying issues.

> I just think it's kind of odd that Mary Moorman chose to snap her now-
> famous photo of JFK at the time she did choose to take it, because from
> all of the available comments made by Miss Moorman herself that I have
> been able to obtain, it would certainly seem (even with the mandatory
> 10-second interval that her Polaroid camera required between pictures)
> that Mary could certainly have taken her photo of JFK's car prior to the
> time when she did take it.
>

Yes, she could have taken it when the limo was turning the corner, but
she wanted a closeup shot.

[Bud]

On Jun 12, 10:50 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:

> On 12 Jun 2012 22:46:03 -0400, burgundy <WBurgha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 12, 5:07 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >>> "How come you always say that there were no changes to the motorcade?"
>
> >> ===============================
>
> >> BONUS MOORMAN INTERVIEW (FROM MAY 2011):
>
> >>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/mary-moorman-interview.html
>
> >> ===============================
>
> >Anyone remember Moorman and Jean Hill trying to get a photo of some
> >cop they were hot for???? Maybe Hargis???
>
> Jean Hill in her book said she was having an affair with one "J.B.
> Marshall."  Actually, the cop she describes is B.J. Martin.
>
> Apparently, this was a rather superficial attempt to avoid naming an
> individual as involved in an adulterous affair.
>
> A Dallas source of mine (I'd have to do a lot of digging to see
> whether this was on the record) says that, yes, there apparently was
> an extra-marital affair.

This goes to show how over-looked into this event really is. Shows
that this is more hobby than investigation. Can you imagine delving
into the personal lives of the people present when Hinckley shot
Reagan?

> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jhill.htm
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm