In its last drone strike before leaving Afghanistan, the U.S. killed a family of 10, including 7 children. 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/afghan-family-says-errant-u-114215391.html 

What a monstrous curse the U.S. has been to Afghans. So, we got Afghan girls into schools. How many Afghan girls and boys did we kill? How many did we maim? How many did we turn into orphans? 

And we did it relentlessly for 20 years!

I curse Bush. I curse Obama. I curse Trump. And I curse Biden. The whole bit about having to save the interpreters was just bull shit, as the Taliban repeatedly announced universal amnesty for all who worked with the Americans. Jesus Christ! If Karzai and Abdullah could stay, you know God-damn well that the interpreters had nothing to worry about. It was all a dog and pony show. 

As I have before, I found the new web address of the Taliban website. It wasn't easy, but I'm tenacious. 

http://alemarahenglish.asia

These people are NOT terrorists, and they never were. They are religious fanatics and Afghan nationalists. The best thing the U.S. can do now is to STOP badmouthing them; STOP spreading lies about them; and STOP supporting people who are going to fight against them. Let that country be at peace for once, for Christ's sake. It's going to work out for the girls to go to school. You can accomplish a lot more by waving a carrot than a stick. 

The U.S. War on Afghanistan was one of the worst atrocities in human history. The duration of it alone tells you that. And there are a lot of rat-bastards who deserve to burn in Hell because of it. 

Mitt Romney is blaming both Trump and Biden for the tragedy in Afghanistan, including the deaths of 13 Americans. But, what about Bush? The deaths of those Americans is directly linked to Bush's decision to attack and invade Afghanistan in 2001, and I mean linked like the dominoes falling in V for Vendetta.

Is there anyone alive who, if they could go back in time to September 2001 and have the ear of George W. Bush, wouldn't tell the mental munchkin, "Don't do it," 

Then, the mother of one of the 20 year old Americans who died at the airport in Kabul went on the radio to excoriate Biden. 

"The mother of a U.S. Marine who was murdered during an Islamic terrorist attack at the airport in Kabul on Thursday unloaded on President Joe Biden during an interview on Saturday morning, calling for him to be removed from office."

"Kathy McCollum, mother of 20-year-old Lance Cpl. Rylee McCollum, called into the “Wilkow Majority” show on SiriusXM Patriot radio where revealed that she had just been notified at her home that her son was killed in the bombing that claimed the lives of at least 13 U.S. soldiers."

“That feckless, dementia-ridden piece of crap just sent my son to die,” she said, speaking about Biden. “I woke up at four o’clock this morning, two Marines at my door telling me my son was dead. So, to [have her on] right before me and listen to that piece of crap talk about diplomatic crap with frickin Taliban terrorists who just freakin' blew up my son and no, nothing, to not say anything about oh my god, I’m so sorry for families. So, my son is gone.”

I understand, Mrs McCollum, but we don't have a draft in this country. Rylee joined the military. Did you try to stop him? Did you warn him that he could be throwing his life away?  Did you tell him that if he gets killed in Afghanistan it will be for nothing? 

Why were so many Americans living in Kabul? I know the State Department had a travel warning, advising Americans not to go to Afghanistan because it isn't safe, that it's a war zone. So, why were up to 15,000 Americans living in Kabul? And why did we wait so long to evacuate them? As soon as we knew that we were getting out, why didn't we get them out? And as far as the Afghan interpreters and others who worked for us, the Taliban has repeatedly announced universal amnesty. This whole campaign to evacuate them is nothing but PR and propaganda. It's an attempt to further demonize the Taliban and make it look like they have no support among ordinary Afghans. And of course the Afghans want to come to the U.S. for the same reason that Hondurans do. Hamid Karzai, the first puppet president, has not moved himself and his family out of Afghanistan. Apparently, he is not worried about the Taliban hurting him or his family. The same goes for Abdullah Abdullah, who was Ghani's rival. Jesus Christ, if he feels safe there , then you can be God-damn sure the interpreters have nothing to worry about. 

What I want to know is: what are Americans going to say and do if our  government and media say we have to go to war again: with Iran or with North Korea or God-forbid with China if they make a move on Tawan?  If we couldn't beat the Taliban in Afghanistan, how the hell could we expect to beat China?  

When numerous people from all over, upon seeing the Altgens photo, recognized Oswald in the doorway, it must have been quite a lot. That's because they wouldn't have thought they needed damage control for just a few. They issued a statement that he wasn't Oswald but rather a look-alike from the TSBD, Billy Lovelady.  But, all they did was lip-flap it; nothing else. They provided no evidence; nothing. They could have provided photos or produced the man himself, Billy Lovelady. But, they provided no evidence at all. 

And, the look-alike claim never made a bit of sense because it wasn't just the likeness of the man, but also, the likeness of the clothes. It's one thing to say that two guys look alike. But, they also just happened to dress alike? No way. Mathematically, that takes it up to Neverland because the world of men is big, but the world of clothes is damn big too, and to say that they both got duplicated is just too farfetched.  THE MAN IN THE DOORWAY NOT ONLY LOOKS LIKE OSWALD; HE IS WEARING OSWALD'S CLOTHES. That cinches it that it's him, and it really was open and shut from the beginning.  

But why, when people realized that authorities were not doing the obvious, which was to produce Lovelady or pictures of him, didn't they scream bloody murder? 

I am reminded of the movie Fargo, at the end, when the female sheriff suddenly realized that the suspect was fleeing the interview. She knew instantly from that that he was the culprit. She kept clamoring over and over, "He's fleeing the interview! He's fleeing the interview!"

Well, when the people who thought they saw Oswald and his clothes in the Altgens doorway heard the State's response, they should have clamored, "They're fleeing the evidence! They're fleeing the evidence!" It should have been a wake-up call that the State was scrambling, that they were caught red-handed and trying to get out of a jam. It was the equivalent of fleeing the interview. 

In other words, their suspicion should have been heightened by the State's response. It was indeed a response of guilt.

And then, the sad-sack measures that followed to bury the Doorman controversy were just as lame. For instance, the Warren Commission coming up with several witnesses who claimed that Doorman was Lovelady. It's not as though they were unaware of what those people were going to say. They hand-picked those people to testify because they knew they would vouch for it being Lovelady. And ironically, the least supportive witness among them was Billy Lovelady. He never claimed to be Doorman. He and Joseph Ball danced around the issue. Think about how easy it would have been for Ball to point to Doorman and ask Lovelady, "Is this you?" But, he didn't do that. He didn't dare do it. 

And then, the HSCA stuff was just as lame. Hiring Robert Grodin who did a photo comparison without using any images of Oswald?  Grodin could have put these two images side by side and asked the HSCA to publish them. You can be sure that Grodin was paid well and that he assured them in advance that he would find for Lovelady. Grodin's mind was made up before he started, and they knew that. That's why they hired him. 

These two look so much alike and are dressed so  much alike because they are the same man, Lee Harvey Oswald. It is childish and preposterous to doubt it. 

The point is that from the beginning and throughout, there was sufficient reason to have the thought "The dirty mudder-fruckers are lying to us." And that means: the State killed Kennedy. 

Some people had that thought right away. Vincent Salandria did. He told me so. But, why didn't more? I've been thinking about it, and I think the answer is: fear of the State. 

The State got it established right away, where it was laid down in stone, that if you don't accept Oswald being up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy, then you are a traitor; you are a terrorist, and you will be targeted. That's how they won: fear. Fear of the State. Fear of being ostracized. Fear of losing one's job. Fear of all kinds of retribution. Look what happened to Mort Sahl, and he didn't work in government. Still, they ruined his career as a comedian. 

And actually, they don't care much if you want to think that there were other shooters, so long as Oswald is one of them, and as long as you make the Mafia the organizer. After all, that was Government Story #2 and it still is.  That's what the HSCA maintained. But, if you try to make it that Oswald was innocent, it's like saying, "I love Hitler." 

Make no mistake: the State killed Kennedy. Even saying that the CIA did it isn't right. It was the whole apparatus of the State, including not just the CIA but the FBI, the Pentagon, the Vice President. As Vincent Salandria said, the "national security state" killed Kennedy. And that's why every government investigation of the JFK assassination has been corrupt and will be going forward, if it comes to it. It's like asking the wolf to investigate the missing chickens at the hen house. 

This is 2021. It's almost 2022. Anyone today who still can't admit that it's Oswald in the doorway is either a) very stupid or b) too afraid of the State to admit it, or c) an outright Kennedy-killer.  

 

This exposes, like an x-ray, the photographic alternations they did to the Moorman Photo. What a dark event this was in our history, and not just because JFK got killed, but because of who did it and what they did to cover it up. And of course, the cover-up continues to this day.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2021/08/this-is-how-motorcycles-looked-in-back.html

 This is how the motorcycles looked in back, and note that it's Hargis in the foreground and Cheyney distant. We also see the wingman on the other side. So, the only one missing is BJ Martin.  

So, it had the white cannisters and then the black thing. What is that? A tool box? But now, let's look at the Moorman photo. 

Notice that that back of Cheyney's motorcycle is washed out, and it looks more like a riding lawnmower. It's hard to make out what that faint imagery is, and it's impossible to explain it. Few have noticed it, but Newman's missing left arm has been noticed, though no one has been able to explain it. However, we can see very clearly the jump seat or tool box or whatever it is behind Hargis. I drew a white arrow pointing to it. But, look at the location of his front wheel. Look how short the line is to it. The front wheel is not in line with the thing in back. And, unless he's driving into the curb, his front wheel should be in line with the back. But, looking at his front wheel, you can see that it is much closer to us, and that is why it is lower in the picture. Recall that height means depth in a photo. That front wheel is not Hargis' front wheel. If it was, he would be veering into the curb.  Hargis' front wheel should be deeper in the picture, in line with the back. It should be the same depth as that tool box. The front wheel we see is BJ Martin's front wheel. I think it will help if we compare both images again.

Can you see now that that front wheel is left of the back of the motorcycle, that they are not connected? They are not the same motorcycle. Below is a model of how that image looked originally before they added the thumbprint.

That's what it looked like, as captured by Babushka Lady, who was sent there to capture images of the assassination, and she was not Beverly Arnold.

Bingo. That's what the Moorman photo really started as, and it's not Mary's photo. Her photo must have been destroyed. Apparently, it showed something that they didn't want us to see. 

But, consider the facts. We know that JFK was shot in the back high on the hill, and I mean long before Mary Moorman would have taken her picture. Why? Because she wanted a close-up. Mary said that she took her picture simultaneous with the first shot. Yet, the court historians have glibly said the Moorman photo was taken right after the last shot, which was the fatal head shot. I don't believe that. I think it was taken right before the fatal head shot. But regardless, Mary took her photo much earlier, and that's according to Mary. She distinctly said that she heard two shots after she lowered her camera. But, what if Mary took her early picture before the throat shot? If that happened, then JFK was reacting to having been shot in the back but not the throat. So, he wasn't raising his hands to his throat and doing what we see in the Zapruder film. So, what was he doing? He was probably just looking odd, detached, not smiling, perhaps grimacing, and maybe Jackie was looking at him like something was wrong. It showed that he was affected by something before he entered the Kill Zone. And that's why they had to destroy Mary's photo. 

Finally, I will leave you with my contention that the location of Mary Moorman and Jean Hill in the Zapruder film is bogus. They weren't that low on the hill. And what I can offer as evidence is where Mary placed herself demonstrating. 

Officially, Mary was located right across from Zapruder, but the spot where they are standing is a lot higher than that. 

So, Mary's own photo got destroyed and replaced. She probably caught an image of JFK reacting to the back shot before he was shot in the throat. It had to look a lot different than the Moorman photo. And I suspect the way they got Mary to go along with it was with some do-re-mi, and I ain't talking show tunes.  

  

Covid Contradictions are astounding

If you don’t know it, I am a filmmaker. I have made three films so far. The first, My Stretch of Texas Ground is streaming on Amazon now. The second, His Stretch of Texas Ground, will start streaming next month. And the third, The Pro Bono Watchman is coming out early next year.

Covid didn’t exist during the filming of My Stretch, but it did during the filming of His Stretch and Pro Bono, and we had to follow Covid protocols, which meant masking all the time EXCEPT when actors were on camera. Then they could do anything without a mask: hug, kiss, fight, whatever. But, as soon as the director yelled “Cut” they had to quickly put their mask back on.

And that included me because I was an actor in The Pro Bono Watchman. This is me acting. I played the grandfather of this 6 year old girl.

But, what sense is there in doing all that masking if you’re going to be exposed to others in front of the camera? It goes beyond contradiction. It’s more like hypocrisy.

And it’s not just on movie sets. It’s in everyday life. A husband and wife get up and go to work at different places; they shop at different places; and they engage with different people all day long. And I realize that there are people who rigorously and relentlessly practice the protocols. But, they are the exceptions, don’t you think? So, when that wife is eating lunch with her co-workers, obviously, she doesn’t wear a mask while she’s eating. But, even when she’s finished eating and is just talking to them, she probably doesn’t put it on either. The point is that when that husband and wife come home at the end of the day, what reason is there to think they are safe from each other? And if you pointed that out to them, they’d probably admit it and say that they are not going to wear a mask around their spouse and kids because it’s too much too ask. They’re just not going to live that way. I wonder if even Dr. Fauci lives that way. 

I run a health retreat, and there is no mask mandate in Texas. But even lately, when guests arrive for the first time, they are often all masked up at the front door. They see that I am not wearing a mask, and I immediately tell them that I don’t wear a mask because I don’t believe in it. I add that they are welcome to wear a mask if they want to, but they don’t have to. And the truth is that so far, everyone has had the same reaction, something like “Oh, thank God!" as they rip their mask off. And then they don’t give it another thought for the duration of their visit, and neither do I. 

So yes, I have been ignoring the protocols- as much as possible. Sometimes I couldn’t. On the set, I had to mask up when I wasn’t acting, and if I didn’t, there was a Covid  monitor who politely said to me, “Ralph, would you please put your mask on?” Or, "Ralph, would you please raise your mask up over your nose?" 

And when there was a mask mandate in Texas, for instance to enter supermarkets and other stores and whatnot, I wore it. Today, it’s optional, and I choose not to wear it.

But, I’m sure it’s true that over the course of this pandemic, my actions would be considered reckless and irresponsible. But, I haven’t lost a wink of sleep over it, and I haven’t gotten sick either. And I have been tested for Covid twice- not because I wanted to but because it was required to be on set of His Stretch of Texas Ground and then The Pro Bono Watchman. And I’ll tell you honestly that I’d like to make another film. It’s already written, and I mean to the point of nearly the final draft.  It’s called: Joe Haladin: The Case of the Missing Sister. But, I’ll tell you, if we make it, it’s only going to happen if there are no Covid requirements, and I mean none. I’ve had it with that.  I'm not doing it any more because I can't take it any more. I am not putting up with it a third time on set.

 

The top image is supposed to be the first showing of the Moorman Photo in a newspaper, which was on November 25, 1963, 3 days after the shooting. But, that is fake. It's the exact same image as the one below except that they softened the thumbprint as best they could. And then, they added a checkerboard light/dark pattern over the whole photo to reduce the visibility of the thumbprint even more. They made the whole thing splotchy so that what remains of the thumbprint doesn't stand out.  However, according to Mary, the thumbprint didn't happen until weeks later after they "borrowed" it. She said they kept borrowing her photo, over and over again, which is weird because they made a negative of it the first day. So, what did they need to keep getting hers for?  And finally, they returned it to her in the condition that we are familiar with, with the "accidental" thumbprint- along with their profuse apologies. 

There is no way that Mary took that photo. The huge size of Hargis compared to Kennedy tells you that the photographer was like this:

Now, the laws of physics tell us that that's where she was. It isn't debatable. You might as well deny that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. It is out of the question that Mary Moorman let the Kennedys pass her and then shot them from behind. It's not just that it has little credibility; it has no credibility. Mary was waiting all morning. She starting looking through the viewfinder as soon as the limo made the turn at the top of the hill. And she never said that she let them pass her. She said that she took it when they were even with her. But, I think it's more likely that she took it a little before that. Why? Because she would have wanted to capture their faces. It's all about the faces; it always is. But, we have an image of someone taking a picture at that very time and from that very angle.

Bingo. That's when the Moorman photo was taken and by Babushka Lady. And she was not Beverly Oliver who was 17. Babushka means grandmother in Russian. Why would anyone call a 17 year old a grandmother? They wouldn't. They couldn't. They didn't. The daunting thing is that if they really did publish Mary's original photo then it may be possible to find an heirloom physical newspaper that has it. 

I thought of this before I read it, that the swarm of Afghans who are swarming to get out of Afghanistan on U.S. planes, are no different than the swarms of Latin Americans who swarm to our southern border trying to get in here. Afghanistan is a poor country, and people in poor countries want to come to America. If we had offered to do this before the Taliban took over, that is, when Ghani was still the mayor of Kabul, people would have stormed the airport the same way trying to get out. 

What do you think would happen if we went to Telucigalpa and offered to take people out on planes? You don't think they would swarm the airport? God-damn right they would. 

Amir Khan Motaqi, chief of the Taliban's guidance council, criticized America over the situation at the airport in an audio clip posted online Sunday. He described the U.S.'s actions as “tyranny." 

“All Afghanistan is secure, but the airport which is managed by the Americans has anarchy," he said. "The U.S. should not defame itself, should not embarrass itself to the world and should not give this mentality to our people that the Islamic Emirate are a kind of enemy.”

Speaking to an Iranian state television channel late Saturday night in a video call, Taliban spokesman Mohammad Naeem also blamed the deaths at the airport on the Americans in what quickly became a combative interview.

“The Americans announced that they would take people to America with them, and people gathered at Kabul airport," Naeem said. “If it was announced right now in any country in the world, would people not go?”

The host on Iranian state TV quickly said: “It won't happen in Iran.”

Naeem responded: “Be sure this will happen anywhere.”

 The insanity goes on and on. We provide the exhilarating and newsworthy escape from Afghanistan to thousands of Afghans. But then, they wind up being crammed into stifling hangars at the airport in Qatar. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/rush-of-afghan-evacuees-to-qatar-leaves-many-crammed-in-hot-hangar-facing-an-uncertain-future/ar-AANA3oX?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

Why is that better than staying home? The Taliban has announced universal amnesty and women's rights. They want to get international recognition. I'm sure they want international aid too. So, you work it from that angle, not the angle of evacuating the country.  

It's amazing how strict Facebook is about content. This is something that I wouldn't dare post there because I could get banned for 30 days. 

But, I have to say that I think that what is going on right now over Afghanistan is outrageous and surreal.  We talk like we want to evacuate the whole country, and mostly just to make the Taliban look bad. It's the way that we ignore reality that irks me the most. Because: the fact is that what happened is that the Afghan Military collapsed. The Taliban didn't win; the other side gave up. They handed the country over to them. So, if we're going to blame anyone, we should blame the the surrendering Afghan Army and the Afghan President who fled the country. 

The Taliban website is down again, and I'm sure it's because it was hacked. But, I'm sure if I could get to it, it would show them denying the reports of atrocities by them, one which was that they skinned someone and hung him from a pole. A former Congressman said that, but I don't believe it. 

The Taliban has said repeatedly that there is amnesty for everyone, that no Afghan has to leave the country. It's one thing for us to get Americans out, but also to evacuate Afghans by the thousands? It's  just a PR campaign. Think about it: we're supposed to be trying to restrain the influx of Latin Americans on our Southern border, right? But, at the same time, we're going to open up the country to thousands of Afghans just to make the Taliban look bad?  And if we keep it up, the Taliban may tire of it and decide to take that airport, and by force, if necessary.  Then what are we going to do? Start bombing again? 

Well, speaking of bombing, it wasn't that long ago that our bombs killed Afghan civilians, including women and children. Just 2 weeks ago, U.S. airstrikes killed at least 20 civilians in Helmand province.

https://tolonews.com/afghanistan-174088

We do all this talk about women's right, but the most fundamental right is the right to life, and we don't grant that to women or men. Throughout the Afghanistan War, we have been more than willing to kill innocent civilians, if it was needed to accomplish a military objective.  Our whole war effort in Afghanistan has been so dastardly, so criminal, and so totally in violation of the Geneva Conventions, to which we are a signatory. And we call the Taliban terrorists. Never has there been a worse case of the pot calling the kettle black. 

 Ralph Cinque

The entire basis for the War on Afghanistan was a lie. The Taliban had done nothing to us. It means that the whole war was nothing but mass murder on our part. There were specific war crimes that we committed, but really all of it was a war crime. We had no right to drop the first bomb.

2

• Like
•  · 
  Reply
•  · 5w

• Dave Manoulian

  Ralph , I read the post and replied , without seeing Who posted it.... your reply caused 2nd look . We're Singing to the Chior ....

  • Like
  •  · 
    Reply
  •  · 5w
• Active

  Ralph Cinque

  Thank you, Dave. Right now, I am dismayed by all the pontificating against the Taliban. We seem to be out to evacuate that whole country, even though we are the ones who heaped the disaster on them. The whole war was based on nothing but lies. We had no right to go in there even if our claims were true. But, they were false, and that makes us monsters. Yet, we pretend that we have the moral high ground. It's disgusting.

 If you analyze Mary Moorman's location when she took her photo, and the time that she took her photo, according to her, you realize that she could not have taken the famous "Moorman photo." 

First, Mary has said from the beginning and all along that she took her photo simultaneous with the first shot, and then she heard two more shots after that. You can hear her say that in this interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgNF-sPW8YI&t=624s

But, that does not match what we see in the Zapruder film. In the Z-film, Mary takes her picture right before the fatal head shot and long after he is seen reacting to the throat shot. So, according to the Z-film, Mary had to hear the first two shots; and then she took her picture; and then she heard the final shot. So, the film says that she took her picture between shots 2 and 3. 

Now, if you have any doubt about that, you need to watch the film. I have Image Of An Assassination: A New Look At The Zapruder film which has the film in several different formats and speeds and is considered superior. So, let's look at some frames. 

This is the top of the intersection. You can see Houston Street right there. And yet, the freeway sign, which was down by the pergola, is in the picture? It shouldn't be. There is no way Zapruder's camera would have caught that there. But, as I've said, they cut out the part in which JFK was riding down the hill after being shot in the back. So therefore, they had to move the sign up.

This is frame 137 and prior to this, all you see are the advance motorcycle cops. You don't even see the limo. So obviously, there wa sa huge cut and splice there. Why they didn't want us to see the limo rounding the corner I do not know.

So, there is Babushka Lady standing behind Brehm, and I suspect she was using him as a shield, knowing that bullets were flying. I think they deliberately blurred the images of her and Brehm, but what she is doing there is lining up her shot in advance. She is pointing the camera in advance and waiting for Kennedy to get into her camera field.  That is a weird way to take a picture. Note that there was plenty of room on each side of Brehm for her to have circumvented him. But, she didn't want to. She knew what was going on, and she felt safer behind him. But, why are her colors all wrong? She is seen wearing a brown coat in all the other images. I don't know why they would have wanted to change her colors, but they did. 

Now we get to Mary Moorman. This frame of her here is constant in the Zapruder film. She under goes no movement. It's always just this still frame. So, they put it in. They took that frame and stuck it in there, like adding a still photo to a movie. 

And it's still the same frame even after they pass her.

So, there is nothing real about anything we see of Mary in the Z-film. Her time came earlier. She took her picture earlier. SHE SAID SHE TOOK HER PICTURE EARLIER. She said she took it simultaneous with the very first shot. She said she heard the shot as she pressed the shutter. It's obviously not what we see in the Zapruder film. 

Here is the infamous frame 313 from the Zapruder, the moment of the fatal head shot that killed JFK. Notice that Mary Moorman is in it. 

So, did she, supposedly, take her picture before or after the fatal head shot? According to Officialdom, was this photo taken just slightly before or just slightly after the fatal head shot?

I can't answer that question because I don't know if it's ever been declared. But, we can at least say that this photo was taken very close in time to the fatal head shot. I think most people would say it was taken slightly before the fatal head shot, but I know of people, such as Robin Unger, who claim it was taken slightly after, like Z-315 or 316.  

But, if you listen to Mary, you'll hear her say that she took her picture at the time of the FIRST shot, not the LAST shot. And there is no reason to doubt her, is there? Not a single person thinks that Mary Moorman lied, right? 

I don't think she lied, but I think she is mistaken about the very first shot. And that's because I know that the very first shot was taken when Kennedy was very high on the hill, when the limo was still adjacent to the TSBD. That's the shot that hit him in the back with the ice dart containing the nerve agent. There is no chance that she took her photo then because he was too far away from her at the time. She wasn't going to take it that early. She wanted a closeup. 

First, where was she on the hill? She wasn't as far down as she appears in the Z-film.  Here she is demonstrating it with Matt Lauer. 

She is not that low on the hill there. She is a lot higher up than Zapruder was. But, most plats, like this one, show her as being directly across from Zapruder.

I drew a line from Zapruder to Moorman. That's not where she really was. She was well above that. So, why does everyone say that she was down there? It's because that's where she appears to be in the Zapruder film. But, they removed her actually footage and just took a still image of her from it and planted it down there to make it appear that she was down there. Why did they do that? They did it because the Moorman photo was taken by Babushka Lady who was shooting diagonally from behind. And the content of it does appear to be late. The arrangement of Jack and Jackie in the limo does correspond with what was going on right before the fatal head shot. 

So, that's when I think it was taken: right before the fatal head shot and by Babushka Lady. Mary's photo was taken much earlier. I can't say when exactly because I would only be guessing. 

Here's the Betzner photo. It shows the freeway sign, and you can see that it was much smaller than what we see in the Z-film. And it would not have been captured by Zapruder when he was shooting the top of Dealey Plaza.

This is art by Paul Burke, which places Mary slightly above Zapruder, so higher on the hill, and it shows the freeway sign on the other side a little too high, in my opinion.  

Mary went on to say that she took her photo right when the Kennedys were alongside her. But, I don't think that's true. Why would she wait until then when shooting earlier would have meant capturing their faces? I think she said it and wants to think it because the Moorman photo doesn't show their faces. But still, let's use Burke's artwork as a model. I have edited it. 

So, I have put MM at where I think Mary Moorman really was. And I have the limo placed where I think she would have snapped the shutter.

One thing is certain: Mary captured something in her picture that they didn't want seen. It revealed something that was devastating to the Official Story. So, what was it? Well, considering that Mary says she took her photo in conjunction with the first shot, it means that she took it early, way earlier than what we see in Zapruder. So, what if she took it before JFK was hit in the throat? It would mean that she caught JFK reacting only to the back shot and not the throat shot, and that was something that they could not let be seen because they were claiming it was all one shot. Her picture may have captured JFK showing distress before he was supposed to have. That may be why they had to destroy her photo. 

This is from the video of Mary Moorman being interviewed. The interviewer held up this frame from the Z-film and said that it was 1 second before Mary snapped the shutter.

Why on Earth would Mary wait so long to take her picture? She wouldn't. She couldn't. She didn't.