While the limo was behind the Stemmons Freeway sign in the Zapruder film, Kennedy was hit twice: once in the back and once in the throat. Neither shot was fatal. The back shot only penetrated slightly in a non-vital area. For all practical purposes, it was scratch. The throat shot was more serious because that is a vital area. But, it didn't penetrate his spinal cord, and we know that because the autopsy showed no damage to his spinal cord. And it was too low to reach his brain. So, had Greer stepped on the gas, floored it, and done some evasive driving at that point, Kennedy could not only have survived, but resumed being President. 

He may have had some chronic swallowing problems and even some some speaking problems, but he still could have been President. 

But, it's very strange the way it happened because he got hit almost simultaneously with those two shots. So, why didn't he duck? Why didn't he have his wife duck? In the Zapruder film, why does he seem to be so out of it mentally? 

Kennedy was a military man. He had fought in war. He had been under fire, and he had been in battles; sea battles. So, why didn't he have the awareness to realize that he was under attack and that they were all in danger, and they needed to duck down; take cover; just like Lyndon Johnson took cover in his convertible.

So, where was Kennedy's mind? I think it is very plausible and even likely that they delivered a very fast-acting paralytic drug in at least one of those missiles that hit him, and probably the back shot. Why else would Kennedy have acted so dazed, so out of it, so doped up? 

Why was he just sitting there? I understand that he was having trouble breathing, but hey: I held my breath for 2 minutes once. So, no oxygen at all for 2 minutes, and I could still think. Do you think he was just overwhelmed? But, what about PT 109 and his actions then? 

From the time Kennedy emerged from behind the freeway sign until the fatal head shot in the Zapruder film was about 5 seconds. But again: they removed frames to hide the slowing and stopping of the limo. So, how long was it really? I don't know, but let's say 7 or 8 seconds. That is an eternity in terms of being shot and responding to it. The moment his mind became conscious of the attack, he should have acted swiftly to protect himself and the others, particularly his wife.  But, he didn't do it, and I believe his mind was numbed. I think it's the most plausible explanation for the behavior that we see.

Kennedy was phased; he was dazed; and it wasn't from the physical trauma. He was a sharp guy. We're all in agreement about that, right? So, how could he act so disoriented unless he was drugged? 

What happens in the Zapruder film is that Kennedy's head goes slamming back and to the left towards Jackie, and Jackie literally dodges it. And it wasn't a conscious decision; it was a reflex; it was an automatic response. So, for a moment, they separate.

 

They are quite far apart there; their heads. 

Kennedy is completely out of it at this point. He's dead. He's as much alive as a chicken running around with its head cut off. 

But, after that, she comes back to him, so they are huddled again, and she is higher than he is because he's got nothing to stay high with. If not for his back brace, he probably would have toppled over completely.

Above and below, she is holding him. He is leaning on her: lifelessly. He has no strength at all. He is completely and totally out of it. He's dead. 

And shortly after that, she begins her trek to the back of the limo.

Alright, so that's the story. They were huddled together up until the time of the fatal head shot. Then, they had a brief separation as he slammed back towards her, and she, reflexly, got out of the way. And then she returned to him and got close to him, but he couldn't rise up any more, so she was higher than him. And then she let him go and began her trek. 

So, we can use that to evaluate other films. When you watch the Nix film, you see JFK and Jackie very close together. They never go through that separation, and it's because they already went through it. She's just going to lie him down and then start her trek. 

You don't see the Moorman photo in the Nix film, and it's because it happened before Nix pointed his camera that way. So that leaves the Muchmore film. And  fortunately, it does offer much more. 

What I think happened in Muchmore is this: I think the fatal head shot came when Brehm and Babushka Lady were blocking Muchmore's view of the Kennedys. So, they are much like the Stemmons Freeway sign in the Zapruder film blocking the view of the back and throat shots. Here's a Muchmore frame before the limo reaches Brehm and BL, and you can see that Jackie and JFK are huddled closely together. She is really turned towards him, so her back is to us. And she is higher than he is. 

Notice that Babushka Lady is facing away from them. She's got her camera pointed to where she intends to take their picture, at an angle. She expects them to enter her visual field, and then she's going to hit the shutter. She is poised and waiting. And then when they emerge on the other side, we get this:

They are separated, and she is lower than before. That was the response to him slamming back and to the left and her getting out of the way, so the fatal head shot must have come while Brehm and BL were blocking our view. We don't see Kennedy's head slam back and to the left in the Muchmore film as we do in the Zapruder film, and that's the reason why.  

Here's the money shot:

That is as close as you are ever going to get to duplicating the Moorman photo. So, if you want to claim that Mary Moorman took the Moorman photo, then you better figure out a way to claim that she took it right here:

   

Backes, I know there was an assassination going on, and everyone knows there was an assassination going on. So, there was no need for me to point it out.

As far as what Mary Moorman thought when she heard the shots, I don't know. I know that many people's minds did not go to assassination. They thought it was firecrackers or motorcycles backfiring.  What Mary thought at first I don't know. Obviously, at some point she realized something was terribly wrong, but when that was, I don't know. At the moment she snapped her picture, did she know that Kennedy was under attack? I do not know. 

But, I do know that in the Altgens photo, not a single spectator is showing any sign of awareness of the tragedy, even though three shots have already been fired: the missed shot, the back shot, and the throat shot. It's all smiles and good cheer. But, a few seconds later it was very different. In this frame from Wiegman, they are all acting concerned that something terrible has happened. This was several seconds after the Altgens photo.  

Again; what Mary Moorman was aware of when she snapped her picture I don't know. But, I take her at her word that she heard two more explosions after she took her picture, and since the Moorman photo was taken after the final shot, the picture she took must have come earlier. 

Here is Saintly Oswald's video as it appears on another site, not youtube. Notice that it's got 140,000 views and 100 Likes.

I am surprised at those numbers because I would have thought the Ops would have swarmed to it to issue dislikes, as they are known to do. 100 people gave it a Like, Backes. So, this is not a Ralph Cinque thing. There are plenty of people besides me who think Babushka Lady took the Moorman photo. I am just one of many, and I was late to the party.

The Moorman photo could not have been taken when Clint Hill was bolting for the limo. That's because it was taken at Z-315, which was two frames after the fatal head shot, and the Clint Hill stuff came later. 

Here's the Zapruder film with frame numbers displayed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXB6mlwB_j4

Here is Z-315 from the above film, which corresponds to the Moorman photo.

Then I kept watching for Clint Hill:

That's Clint Hill at the back of the limo, but it's a full second later than Z-315, the time of the Moorman photo, and it was probably later than that because we know that they removed frames from the Zapruder film in order to hide the slowing and stopping of the limo. 

And when you think about how advanced this is, you realize that Mary Moorman would never have waited that long to take her picture. Remember, she was waiting there, ready and prepared, before the Kennedys reached her. Why would she let them pass by only to shoot them from behind? Who would do that? 

Look at this Nix frame that Robin Unger put up to represent the time of the Moorman photo.

He's arguing that even though she was there, poised and ready the whole time, Mary saw the limo approaching from her right, let it get to her and then let it pass her only to take her picture at the angle you see below. Who in her right mind would do such a thing?

Obviously, she took her picture before that, as any sane person would. And if you look closely, you can see that she didn't even have her camera raised to her eye at the time. Of course she didn't because she had already taken her picture. This was well after the Moorman photo. 

Once again, Robin Unger has got it wrong. He hasn't picked the right frames in Muchmore and Nix to correspond to the Moorman photo. And once again, he is submitting a doctored, falsified image. 

Z-315 is correct; it corresponds to the Moorman photo. But, in it, Mary is in the exact same position she was in in Z-309 and before, which is looking straight ahead and not at the Kennedys.

But, Robin's other picks are wrong.  M-44 is close, but it occurs after the Moorman photo, and you can tell by the advancement of the motorcycles. The limo driver had braked, slowing the velocity of the limo, perhaps to zero, as many reported. The motorcycle cops had to react to that, but their braking came after his braking, and in the interim, they gained on the limo. 

On the right, you see the hump of the spare tire case at the back of the limo. The second motorcycle cop is surely up with the left rear wheel, but he's farther back and out of sight in the Moorman photo. Here is the correct frame from Moorman, and it came before.

But, the worst thing is Unger's treatment of Nix. This is where the outright fraud enters the picture. Nix25 is WAY too late to correspond to Moorman. And it's easy as pie to tell because by Nix25, Clint Hill is on the move. He's in the scene. And he would have been captured in the Moorman photo if that was when it was taken. 

You can't see him in Unger's Nix25 because Unger- or somebody- took him out. Look: Notice how in the top one, which says N25 at the lower right in yellow, which is Unger's frame, Clint Hill is blended in with the third motorcycle cop, and you don't see him at all. You see where Mary is, and notice that her arms are not raised to take a photo. But surely if she did take a photo at that moment, Clint Hill would have been captured in it. In the lower frame, you can see him much better, where I have him circled.  

Let's hone in:

How many people, who were unprompted and unsavvy to JFK stuff, would have picked out Clint Hill in Robin Unger's frame? I am going to say 0 because I don't think that even 1 in 100 would. 

The Moorman photo was taken 1/9 of a second after the fatal head shot- the difference between Z-313 and Z-315. Do you think that Clint Hill reacted that fast to be on the ground and mingled with the motorcycle cops 1/9 second after the fatal head shot? You know he wasn't. 

Nix25 came WAY after the Moorman photo. It's not even close. And, Clint Hill would be IN the Moorman photo if that was when it was taken. 

Robin, you really should give up because you don't have the skill for this; you don't have the brains for it; and you don't have the honesty for it either. 

But, think about what it means. By presenting Nix25 as the time of the Moorman photo, Robin and his handlers were admitting that the motorcycle cops had to be ahead of Mary in order for her to have taken the photo. And that much is true.

Hargis looms so large in the picture compared to the Kennedys that the photographer had to be MUCH closer to him. And the only way for that to be true is if the distance was additive. In other words, you could not have had separate lines going from the photographer to Hargis and to the Kennedys at different angles. You could never have gotten enough size disproportion that way. The only way to get the size disproportion that we see above is to have essentially ONE LINE, a line that went from the photographer to Hargis and then continued on to the Kennedys. Unger and his handlers realized that, and that's why they tried to push the Moorman photo back to Nix25. But, it's too late because Clint Hill was on the ground by then, and he surely would have been in the picture.    

Mary Moorman did NOT take the Moorman photo. The fact that they are pulling tricks like this only demonstrates how desperate they are to hide it. 

I have come upon these very clear frames of Wiegman Doorman1 and Wiegman Doorman2. There are 3 to 4 seconds separating them in the film. 

Notice that in the doorway, Carl Jones looks about the same, and so does Popeye. They're looking down Elm Street. Why shouldn't they? The action is down Elm Street. The concern is for what is going on down Elm Street. That is where the President is. So, why would Doorman, who was turned and looking that way just like the others, suddenly snap to attention and face straight ahead and go into some kind of "Ohm" trance, where he is meditating and searching for the third eye? The whole behavior is wrong. It is divorced from the situation. Here the two of them are in a gif; two different men.

The one who appears taller is real; the other one is not. And why should there be a height difference? You don't see a change in Carl Jones? Are we supposed to believe that Doorman stepped down a step? 

And look at the whole image because there is more to the right of the implanted Doorman.

Why is that such a mess to the right of Doorman as we view the picture? How did he come out clear but when there is so much distortion right next to him? You can't blame it on anything that Wiegman or the camera were doing because that would have affected the whole image. There would have been distortion everywhere. So, why only in that corner? What shall we blame it on? Go ahead; give it your best shot. But, I'll warn you: there is no innocent explanation. 

The first Wiegman Doorman was Oswald, and he left for the lunch room. By the time of the other frame, he was gone, and his spot was empty. And that's why they put that phony other Doorman in there. He was not Oswald; he was not Lovelady; and he was not there. 

These are supposed to be the same mother and the same child, in the same spot, at the exact same time, doing the exact same thing. But how?  How could one be wide awake, facing forward, with a straight back where he is not leaning on anybody, while the other is facing the other way, helplessly leaning against its mother, and apparently asleep? THEY CAN'T BE THE SAME, yet, they are in the same spot at the same time. And that can only mean that BOTH SETS ARE FAKE. It's not as though one mother/child set is real and the other is fake. BOTH ARE FAKE.   

On the right, the proportions are all wrong. Grossly wrong. This has gone on for 51 years. Stop the lies. 

The fact is: disproportionality drawing babies is one of the most common mistakes artists make. But, most remember to include arms and legs. 

The armless, legless, microcephalic Towner Baby isn't real. And it means that "they" (the people who hired the lousy artist) killed Kennedy. 

Check out the Mother/Baby head size proportion, left and right. And do you notice that one of the babies is missing arms and legs?   It's the one on the right. 

The head of the drawn baby on the right is ridiculously small; the mother's head ridiculously large. They are caricatures; not real people. 

Did they really expect to get away with this? You can see that the baby just looks like a cardboard poster. It doesn't even look alive. You think it was asleep? But, if it's supposed to be the boy from Altgens, it can't be asleep because he was wide awake and looking out into the street, his back straight as an arrow. And look at the way she's waving. It's just a flick of her wrist. There is no movement at all below it. The rest of her looks as stiff as the baby. It's not how people wave. Waving involves movement at the wrist, at the elbow, and at the shoulder. Look at the other people waving. They're not doing it the way she is. 

She isn't doing it. She is a creation. They built her out of that double- trunk tree. Then they plopped the baby in next to her, as just a blob of orange and a larger blob of white. Again, look at how it looks without them there:

So, the two trunks of the tree correspond to her hair hanging down her shoulders. 

Then they added the orange and white blobs for the baby.

And Wahlah, you've got yourself a woman and baby. Now, do you notice that in the image, she appears to have a bald spot on top of her head? Why do you think that is? It's not a bald spot. It is her flicking left hand atop her head. That's how it came out in this still version. This was a still image taken from a frame that Robin Unger posted. And that's how it looked. I'm sure it was photoshopped like crazy. But, she is not bald; she does not have a halo; that is her left hand. So, what's the white thing coming across at the bottom that looks like her gloved left hand?

It's just Photoshop bull shit, that's all. It's certainly not in the film. 

They take these crops and go to work on them, adding more content, more data than was there. They add anything they want. They do anything they want. It's all a lie. It's all a big photographic lie. 

The Towner Woman and Baby are FAKE. And what it means is that the whole story of the JFK assassination is fake. 

A woman who is standing holding a child needs to use her arms to do it, and the Towner woman is definitely not doing it. It means: the image is false.

They added a false image to the movie. They falsified a piece of forensic evidence in the case. That is a crime. It is literally a criminal act. 

I know why they did it, but even if I didn't know why they did it, I would still know that they did it. And ultimately, the reason they did it was to lie about the case, to spread false information, to deliberately deceive investigators and the public about what happened. 

And ultimately they did it for one reason: because Oswald was innocent and standing in the doorway at the time of the shots. Ultimately, it comes down to that; everything comes down to that; it always comes down to that.  

So, Bpete says that the defects seen in this image here:

and here:

are comparable to this:

Nice try. Actually, not so nice. 

How is the mother holding the baby? If you think that is her left arm coming across at the bottom to support the baby, you are mistaken. That's because her left arm is busy waving at the President the whole time. Look:

You see that stupid flicking hand? Where she and the baby look like cardboard stiffs except for that stupid repetitive flicking? It's a trick! But, the point is that she can't be holding the baby with her left arm since she's waving with it.

So, her left arm is not holding the baby, and if her right arm was going around the baby, we'd see it. The black long sleeve of her dress would stand out against the white coat of the baby. So, she's not holding the baby with her left arm, and she's not holding it with her right arm. She is not holding the baby at all. That baby is levitating. It is all bull shit. It's just a phony image of a mother and baby that was inserted into the Towner film.

This one is easy. Look at the color of the woman's clothes in Altgens on the left. They are light, bordering on white. Look at the color of the woman's clothes in Towner on the right. They are dark, as in jet black. And it was the exact same moment in time. So, how can they be the same woman? And if they're not the same woman, how can they be the same child? How can a little boy with a big head also be at the same time an infant with microcephaly? 

Look at the black within the circle. What is it? It's the jacket of the man in the Fedora hat. It's the back of his jacket. If he were facing forward, we'd see his shirt. That guy is turned around.

So, this is the nape of his neck, and this is the brim of his hat.

The problem is that people have looked at him with their mind's eye instead of their real eyes. They think he's facing forward. But look at the area between the boy's wool cap and the man's fedora hat.

That isn't his flesh-colored forehead. That's the ribbon of his hat. He's facing the other way. He's facing in the direction of the arrow.

Now can you understand why they had to cover him up? There was the President of the United States riding by, and this guy had his back to him and was looking elsewhere. Where else? He was looking at Lee Harvey Oswald; that's where else. He was more interested in Oswald than in Kennedy. 

And look at that guy. Look how he's dressed compared to everyone else. I've seen others refer to him as the "Mafia guy." He ain't no normal spectator; that's for sure.  

And where was Jack Ruby? Supposedly at the Dallas Morning News placing an ad for his cabaret. Do you believe that? He was a man who was present EVERYWHERE after the assassination: at Parkland Hospital and then at the Texas Theater according to George Applin.

"Two days later, after seeing Jack Ruby shoot Oswald on TV, Applin recognizes him as the nonplussed man in the back of the theater. But Applin was too fearful to mention this until 1979, even though he testified at the Warren Commission."

https://riversong.wordpress.com/the-jack-ruby-connection/

Ruby was at the Dallas PD after Oswald was arrested and was being processed, including in the homicide bureau. He was at the Midnight Press Conference; and of course, he was at the prison transfer. Julia Ann Mercer saw him in Dealey Plaza right before the assassination, transporting weapons. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Ann_Mercer

Do you really think he wasn't there for the "Big Event"?