disable right click

Friday, August 26, 2016

Now, here's something interesting. Robin Unger says that the Muchmore frame that I picked that corresponds with Moorman is Muchmore38, which is 4 frames before the fatal head shot.

Well, I wasn't thinking about it at the time, but the Zapruder frame that I concluded must correspond to the Moorman photo is Z-309. And that too is 4 frames before the fatal head shot.


I love it when everything works out. 

I spent at least 6 hours today doing a painstaking analysis of the Zapruder film and the Moorman photo, to see which Zapruder frame really corresponds to Moorman. And the result was that, contrary to common belief, the Moorman photo was taken BEFORE the fatal head shot. To be exact: the Moorman photo corresponds to Z-309, which is 4 frames before the fatal head shot. 

And it's easy enough to see at first glance that it had to be before 
Z-313 because once the fatal head shot hit, both JFK and Jackie were in motion. His head went rearing back and to the left, and her head went the other way, forward, no doubt to get out of the way. By reflex alone she would have done that. You do it automatically- without thinking. 

And after the fatal head shot, in Zapruder frames 314, 315, and 316, we see the motion blur from all the movement. Those frames have a wild, frenetic look. But, in the Moorman photo, both JFK and Jackie look photographically stable. They have zero motion blur. They show no frenzy. Therefore, it couldn't possibly be after the fatal head shot. The fatal head shot hadn't happened yet.

In a word, it gets very wild and frenetic after the fatal head shot, but, they are NOT in the midst of that frenzy in the Moorman photo; therefore, it didn't happen yet. 



So, it was a very misguided and unwarranted idea to claim that the Moorman photo was taken after the fatal head shot. The reason we don't see the damage from the fatal head shot on Kennedy is because it didn't happen yet. 

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2016/08/we-need-to-reexamine-from-scratch.html 



We need to reexamine, from scratch, the question of which Zapruder frame corresponds to the Moorman photo. 

We'll start with Z-300 because that is the one most commonly used to show Mary Moorman taking her photo.




I have it cropped it, of course, and the reason is that I want to see the Kennedys large and compare them to how they look in the Moorman photo. 



Jackie is too high compared to JFK in Z-300, and Jack and Jackie are too close together. So this isn't it.

But, note that you see Mary Moorman right there, directly across from the Kennedys, and that is when Mary said she took her picture. And, it shows us that if Mary took her picture when she repeatedly said she did, that she would have captured the backs of their heads. It also confirms what the Professor said, that Jackie would have blocked Mary's view of JFK to some extent. But, let's keep going. 

Here is Z-305, and Jackie's head is a bit lower, so it's better.




That isn't bad. We are definitely getting close. Let's jump ahead to the one that conventional wisdom claims is the match: Z-315.



No! Definitely not. Can you see why? 315 is too frenetic. Look at all the MOTION BLUR on Jackie. Look at her hair flying around wildly. That would have been captured in the Moorman photo as well. In the Moorman photo, she looks STABLE. In 315, she is on the move, and she is UNSTABLE. She's either ducking, or she's just acting startled. So, 315 is definitely not it, and the conventional wisdom is wrong. 

So, it's between 305 and 315. Let's see if we can find it. There is no reason to consider 314 because it is just as frenetic and unstable as as 315. So, here's 313:



No, that's not it. Her head is too close to JFK in 313. Remember what happened: JFK's head went slightly forward BEFORE it went back and to the left. There is a much bigger gap between them in the Moorman photo. 

What we need is separation between them and Jackie's head being as low as possible. The best that I have found is Z-309.





Yes, that's it. I like it, and I'm going with it. 308 is about the same, but I'm going with 309. I checked 310, and it isn't as good. 

So, this frame is it. This is the Z-frame that corresponds to the Moorman photo:



You can just forget about Mary. She's not even pointing her camera at the Kennedys. She's pointing it straight ahead. And, she hasn't moved a muscle since Z-300. She is just noise. They altered the Zapruder film, disassociating the foreground from the background. A great many people have said so and for much longer than I have been involved. So, don't assume that that is real. That is her image from an earlier frame.  

Obviously, this has great significance because it means that the Moorman photo was taken BEFORE the fatal had shot, and that's why JFK's head looks intact. 



It was desirable to claim that the Moorman photo was taken after the fatal head shot because it argued against the big blow-out wound in back from the "back and to the left" shot. And again, I'll point out that you can see above that Jackie looks very stable and very planted. She doesn't look like she's going anywhere. She doesn't look like she is reacting to that final shot; there is no frenzy and no motion blur. 

And now that we know that the Moorman photo was taken before the fatal head shot, it confirms what we see in Muchmore. 



That is the frame that I like best as a match to Moorman.  Compare the Kennedys:



Holey Moley! That has got to be as good as we can find. And that is before the fatal head shot. If you look at the fatal head shot in the Muchmore film, the visibility of the limo wheel has been completely obscured by the motorcycles. Why? Because Greer braked, and the motorcycle cops didn't, at least, not as much. So, they gained ground on the limo. 



That is way too late to be a match to Moorman. Look how far advanced the motorcycles are. They are completely obscuring the limo wheel. 

Z-309. It's when the Moorman photo was taken. 






Comments
Alan Murphy Logic dictates that Oswald dd not write this letter. But it winds up being more ammo for the bad guy Warren Club defenders to characterize him as the lone nut. I don't know why something like this was put together. There was a motive but we will never know what it was.
LikeReply4 mins
Ralph Cinque Thanks, Alan. It's almost as though they were writing an opera.
LikeReplyJust now


There is a handwritten letter that LHO supposedly sent to Robert Oswald from Russia. Here's the first page of it, and it goes on for 8 pages. Note the date: November 26, 1959. So, he had been there for 2 months.  

Why would anyone think that this is authentic? It's an extremely bizarre letter. And I know that that's the idea: that Oswald was an extremely bizarre person. But, if you know very well that he wasn't, then you should doubt the authenticity of this letter. Let's consider:

Oswald had disappeared into the Soviet Union and was gone for two months. Then, he writes his brother. How would such a letter begin? Wouldn't he start by saying exactly where he was, how he was doing, what his circumstances were, what his life was like, and what Soviet life was like? Wouldn't he talk about how it was there: the daily life; the people; the food; the music; etc.? But no, instead, he starts in as though he is in the middle of a conversation with Robert about why he wants to overthrow the US capitalist system, etc. He just gets right to it without saying anything that is remotely normal. In the context of the circumstances in which the letter was written, it is some wild, weird, and freaky stuff.  

But, let's talk about the authenticity. First, not only should we not grant the authenticity of it automatically; we should automatically turn on every alarm in our heads. Why? Because of all the fake, phony evidence in the JFK assassination, that's why. The burden of proof is on THEM, the supporters of JFK officialdom. Until they prove that it's authentic, it remains highly suspicious.

Now, let's consider some facts. We know that the Soviets closely monitored all of Oswald's mail, both incoming and outgoing. They read everything- all his correspondence. Don't you think they would have reacted to this letter?  A dumb and foolish person might think that the Soviets would delight in this: 

"In the event of war I would kill ANY American who put a uniform on in defence of the American government--any American." 

But, the fact is that, regardless of who he was talking about, it is a very bizarre, extreme, and maniacal statement to make, and they would have noticed that and noted it. It would have gone into his file. This was, supposedly, a letter to his brother, who was an American. So, was he telling his own brother that "I'll kill you" if you put on a uniform to defend the US? The Soviet Union had psychologists, and they would have recognized that this was highly abnormal. Worse; it was totally whacked. You don't really want a guy like that running around in your country. 

But, was Oswald really that whacked? Was he whacked enough to write that letter? Well, there are extensive interviews of the people who knew Oswald in Russia who described how he was, such as Dr. Ernst Titovets.  And none of them, described him this way- like the guy who wrote that letter. It's not even close. None of them said that he was obsessed with Communism and talked about it all the time. None of them said that he bashed the US or talked about taking up arms against the US government. From all that we know from the record and from the people that knew him there, what Oswald's life was like in Russia was that he worked his job at the radio factory, and then he sought to socialize and have fun. He also apparently spent a lot of time chasing girls. He dated quite a few and girls chased quite a few- before Marina came along. According to John Armstrong, he hung around this female dormitory trying to meet girls. So, why in a letter to his brother, would he be all business about Communism when he wasn't doing that there? He wasn't like that there. He wasn't remotely like that there. That whole dark obsessed mindset was completely, totally absent; nobody reported it. He never bashed the US, in fact, he defended the US. Even Marina said that he defended the US- to her relatives. 

So, what we have is a situation in which the Soviets never confirmed the authenticity of this letter- even though they were monitoring his mail like a hawk. And since the letter wasn't brought out until after Oswald was dead, he never confirmed the authenticity of it. What do you think he would have said if they showed it to him? He probably would have said the same thing he said when they showed him the phony Backyard photo; that it's fake. We don't have anyone who knew Oswald in Russia who confirmed that he wrote that letter or that he could have written it, based on what they knew of him; his personality; his interests; his state of mind; etc.  

Some may try to defend the letter on the basis of the handwriting being his, but stop the nonsense. Don't you think the CIA figured out long ago how to duplicate anyone's handwriting? And when was it ever put to scrutiny by a hostile examiner? That was never part of it. 

And by the way, at one point in the letter, he tells Robert that he, Robert, means nothing to him, and neither does his mother. Well, who writes 8 pages to such a person? Wouldn't a letter containing such a statement, by necessity, be short? Who writes 8 pages to someone he doesn't care about? 8 pages? 8 handwritten pages? I'm laughing out loud as I type this because the idea is so ridiculous. 

I'll give the link to the letter so that you can read the whole thing- if you want to:


But, the only thing this is evidence of is the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald is the most reviled, the most maligned, the most framed person who ever lived. What they did to him- in life and in death- is truly monstrous. And it shows that the underbelly of this wonderful society of ours, this "City on a Hill" is and truly has been for a very long time: rotten, ugly, and satanic. 


   

 



There was Mary Moorman, poised, ready, and waiting for the Kennedys. And notice that, like everybody else, she is turned to her right at that point, since that's where the Kennedys were.



But, we are expected to believe that even though the Kennedys just crept by and practically stopped in front of her, that she didn't shoot their picture then, that waited until they passed her and then shot the back of their heads.



It's crazy. She didn't take this photo. 

And now, Backes thinks he knows better than a physics professor where the photographer was for this picture.



Thursday, August 25, 2016

The idea that the Moorman photo was taken after the fatal head shot needs to be reexamined. But, according to Unger, this is the fatal head shot in the Muchmore film. So, theoretically, that would be extremely close to when Mary took her picture. But, Mary never could have captured the Moorman photo shooting then or near to then.




What did I say about the perspective of the Moorman photo? I said that because Hargis looms very large in the picture compared to the Kennedys, that the distance to the Kennedys must have been additive. So, Hargis was much closer to the taker of the Moorman photo than she was to the Kennedys. We know that beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt because of the relative sizes.



But, look at that Muchmore frame with the distances to Mary marked off:



Why would Hargis loom larger than the Kennedys in a picture that Mary took then? Hargis seems to be as far or farther away from her than the Kennedys are. By virtue of the length of the lines, Hargis is farther away from her than the Kennedys are. So, why would he appear larger in her picture than the Kennedys if she took it then? 


Mary Moorman didn't take that picture. She didn't take it then, and she didn't take it at any other time either. It's not her photo.