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

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/a54a0e546e80adcf

TONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "A few seconds earlier the limo would be too far away [from Mary Moorman]." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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.

[You're] 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.


>>> "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 unimportant 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

[bigdog]

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

David, my comments are based solely on memory so they should be taken
with a grain of salt. As I recall, the early Polaroid cameras took 60
seconds, not 10 seconds to develop a picture and if that is correct,
her wait time might have been greater. I distinctly remember her taped
interview with a TV newsman that played on the evening news in which
she stated her camera was a Polaroid and she could only take a picture
every X seconds. My memory tells me that X = 60, buy I wouldn't bet
the mortgage payment on that. She may have said 10 seconds. Do you
have her taped interview in your archives? Also, if my memory is
correct, the pictures developed inside the camera and you had to wait
for that to happen before you could pull it out and then take the next
picture. Later generations of Polaroid cameras ejected the picture as
soon as it was taken, allowing you to take pictures in rapid
succession, but those were at least 10 years away in 1963. Whether the
wait time was 10 seconds or 60, it may have been a case that Moorman
had taken a picture earlier and had to wait for that one to develop
before taking the next one. That might have dictated that she had to
wait until JFK was past her before taking her iconic photo.

[David Von Pein]

1st video (at 3:00) and 4th video from top (at 1:30):

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

[bigdog]

On Jun 11, 6:41 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> 1st video (at 3:00) and 4th video from top (at 1:30):
>

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

OK, so it was 10 seconds. I'm not sure that is the same interview I
remember because I thought Moorman showed her picture to the TV camera
but we've already established my memory isn't reliable. It sounds like
Moorman might have taken a picture just as the motorcade came into
view and this forced her to wait until JFK was past her before taking
the next one. It's a good thing she did wait or we might never have
got a glimpse of Badgeman. :)

[David Von Pein]

In the CBS '64 video, Moorman says she was focusing and aiming her
camera "for quite a few seconds because I wanted to be sure they were
looking at me".

Maybe Mary thought JFK & Jackie had eyes in the backs of their
heads. :-)

[aeffects]

ahh, another lone nut circle jerk, how quaint..... ROTFLMFAO.... you
fools are such a trip!

[Sam McClung]

but did they want original or extra krispy?

[David Von Pein]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/a54a0e546e80adcf/a675049904434d1b?#a675049904434d1b


>>> "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

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

[aeffects]

On Jun 12, 11:53 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

no advertising ya fanatical lone nut dipso....

[aeffects]

On Jun 12, 4:29 am, "Sam McClung" <mccl...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> but did they want original or extra krispy?

lone neuters don't even think about it when they swallow....

[Sam McClung]

ode to a true texan

(in a frank zappa voice)

well i'm a true texan
in my chinese fruit of the looms
and my chinese levis
and chinese bandana too
(i'm becoming the yellow man i went around the world to kill)

you might see me
in my latest dubbed movie
using my patriotic petrol
in my surplus army jeep
(ptsd)

[can also be done in the blind melon chitlin version]

[lazu...@webtv.net]

Maybe this time Von Pein try a litte sugar on that piece of shit when
you woof down that magic bullet...Laz