Sunday, June 18, 2017

You've got to be pretty damn stupid to believe the FBI fib that the white thumbprint was accidentally imposed on Mary's photo. That's because a plain old thumb couldn't do it. It has no effect. So, did this agent have something on his thumb? And then for some reason, he pressed it into the photo, as in taking a fingerprint?

The whole story is wildly preposterous. And one believes it either because one is extremely stupid or because one is working with or for the FBI. 

And this is most certainly not the original of the Moorman photo. It's the regular Moorman photo after it was photoshopped to remove the thumbprint.  If you look closely, you can still see the remnant of the thumbprint. 

And frankly, I should think they could have done a better than that. But, don't for one second think that there is anything real about it. It's more fake evidence. The Moorman photo with the thumbprint is the only one there is.  And to the Punks who try to get away with using this, I am tell them: No. You can't. And that's because I'm here, and I am telling you that you can't. 

Alright, so that settles that. What about the angle from which Marie Muchmore shot? First, I'll point that Amy Joyce is doing some valuable and impressive work, and she got the scoop on Marie Muchmore. She found out that Marie Muchmore denied taking the Elm Street footage. She also found out the WC was not interested in hearing from her, and that unlike others, she stayed out of the limelight and never discussed the assassination publicly. So, in light of what Amy found out, all bets are off about the origin of the kill zone footage of the Muchmore film. 

But, we can determine where the camera was when it was taken from just by looking at it. 

If you were watching a parade, and you were directly in front of the parade, you would see everything in proper perspective. If you were directly behind the parade and following it, you would also see everything in proper perspective. And if you were facing it sideways at a perpendicular angle, you would also see it fine. But, when you face the parade diagonally, that's when you get the optical illusion that Martin was in front of Hargis, as we see above. We know it is an optical illusion; we know that at that time, Martin was behind Hargis. So, we know the photographer had to be shooting on a diagonal from the side, and she was. But the photographer was not as diagonal as Babushka Lady. If she shot at the same angle as Babushka Lady but farther back, then BL would not be so rightward in her photo. So, you could say from looking at this that the photographer was between Moorman and Babushka Lady, but of course, farther back. But, not halfway in-between; rather, her angle was much closer to Babushka's. All of that is contained in the image.

And of course Martin was never actually in front of Hargis, but he looks that way to Muchmore (or what we are calling Muchmore) and it's because of the diagonal angle at which it was taken. And this description of the motorcycles is most certainly true. 

That is Martin's bike visually encroaching on the rear wheel of the limo. And that is the rear of Hargis's bike behind Hargis. There is a line there. We can see the line of Hargis' bike, and the line of Martin's as well.

So, there are two lines of two motorcycles there. And that's why they imposed the thumbprint. They essentially took Martin out of the photo and the built him into it in the right corner with the clam hand and the impossibly long forearm, etc. 

And though Punks and Fools will deny it, what explanation do they have for the thumbprint? Even theoretically, how could it have gotten there? It happened weeks after the assassination when the photo was long stable. And it was properly treated with fixing agent. It's not even conceivable that it happened by accident. How? And of course, anything that's proposed would have to be tested. You'd have to not only say it but duplicate it. Make a permanent white thumbprint happen on a stable photograph, and make it look like the Moorman photo. And even if you do it, it would not prove that the Moorman photo happened that way. But, at least it would be a start. Without that you've got nothing. Nothing but an obviously altered photo, which the Moorman photo most certainly is. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.