This is the interview Mary did on 11/22, and they cropped the start of it. After an introduction by Bill Lord, it goes to her, and she says, "picture. And I took the picture."

So, what did she say before "picture" that they cropped? Obviously, it must have been something that they didn't want us to hear. Very likely, it was her saying that she captured their faces in the picture.

Then, the next thing she said was that she took her picture at the instant of the first shot. She said:

"After I took the picture, the shots were still being fired. There
were 3 or 4 shots close together, and it must have been the first one that hit him because that is when I took the picture."

She said that her picture shows JFK slumping and Jackie leaning towards him.

 But, she could not have been right about it being the first shot. I know very well that the first shot was the one that hit JFK in the back high on the hill which delivered the nerve agent. But, that shot was silent. It involved no combustion; rather, it was battery-operated. This is from Google AI:

AI Overview

The CIA "heart attack gun" developed in the 1960s, was designed to shoot a small, frozen dart coated in a potent shellfish toxin, intended to induce a fatal heart attack without leaving obvious traces. It operated silently, causing rapid death, designed to leave little to no trace of the poison during an autopsy. 

 It was NOT developed in the 1960s but in 1953. Charles Senseney said so to the Church Committee in 1975. And he was talking about the heart attack gun:

 Mr. SMOTHERS. Is this a device that looks roughly like a .45-caliber pistol with a sight mount at the top?

Mr. SENSENEY. This was a follow-on. It was to replace the M-l projectile to go into the army stockpile. It did look like a .45.

But, even Google AI admitted that it operated silently. And in his testimony to the Church Committee, CIA Director William Colby said that the heart attack gun worked silently.

Church:  Does this pistol fire the dart?

Colby:   Yes, it does, Mr. Chairman. The round
thing at the top is obviously the sight; the rest of it is what is practically a normal .45. However, it works by electricity. There is a battery in the handle, and it fires a small dart.

Church:   So that when it fires, it fires silently?

Colby:  Almost silently; yes.

So, Mary Moorman was not talking about that shot. And frankly, I think Mary captured JFK right before he was shot in the throat by Umbrella Man. She said her picture showed JFK slumping and Jackie leaning towards him. But, when JFK was shot in the throat, he had a panic reaction, raising his hands to his throat and mouth. It was not a reflex, but it was an instinctual panic reaction. He couldn't breathe! Mary's photo didn't capture that because she didn't describe it that way. So, I'm thinking that Mary's photo must have captured the instant BEFORE he was shot in the throat.

So, what she caught was him slumping and looking distressed from the effect of the back shot and Jackie turned and focused on him. It was probably very much like what we see in Zapruder 207 except without the smudge that they put over his face to hide his distressed look.

This is Mary's statement on 11/22/63, and it certainly tells us that the existing Moorman photo is not the photo she took.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEavxZReo84

 All right, so people want to play hardball; then let's play hardball. First note the monument in each photo because in each photo, there is a tree above the monument (east) and below the monument (west). I numbered them 1 and 2 in each photo. So, the monument is between the two trees in each photo. Then, there is lone third tree on the side of the building in each photo. I numbered that 3 in each photo.

But, what about the very tall tree in the McBride photo? It isn't present at all in the other photo. It's not just that it's too tall; it's that it's there. Because it is not in the other photo at all; not at any height.

So, that whole big tree behind McBride is a lie.

So, what are the State moles going to say now? I don't know, but I know there is no limit to their audacity. They are like the Cheka in the early Soviet Union.

 These are the words that Mary Moorman spoke as she demonstrated how she took her photo. It was several months later; probably the Spring of 1964. The Stemmons Freeway sign had already been removed. By that time, both Mary Moorman and Jean Hill were very calm and reflective, and not immersed in the shock of what happened.

But, read Mary's words carefully because she said, very matter of factly, that she got into the street. And she made it clear that she lingered there in the street for quite a few seconds because she wanted to capture their faces.

However, it is physically impossible that she let them pass her and then shot the backs of their heads, as we see in the Moorman photo. And that's because it was physically impossible for her to do it. There was no room for her in the street once they reached her. That's because Officer BJ Martin, on the outside motorcycle, was hugging the curb.

You don't think she was going to obstruct and block the motorcade of the President of the United States, do you? Of course not. That is a real picture of Mary during her demonstration, and the other image is an accurate representation of what she was seeing.

And please don't suggest that she jumped out of the street at the last second; let the limo and the motorcycle escorts pass, and then got back in the street, turned the other way, to shoot the backs of their heads. It's a ridiculous claim. Besides, she didn't say it. And if she didn't say it, you can't say it.

So, as wild as it may sound to you that Mary Moorman's photo got replaced, that is what the evidence is telling us.

 You can thank Peter Manson for this because he spotted it, not me. The FBI enhanced and falsified the photo of Officer Glenn McBride that Mary Moorman took 10 minutes before the limo arrived. What they did was place another tree, a very tall one, behind the one that was there. Notice that the added tree, with its own canopy, is extremely dense. You can't see a thing through it. Why did they do it? I presume it's because something was showing in the window that they didn't want us to see.

Now, I am going to show you why they added that white thumbprint to the Moorman photo. And I hope you realize that they lied to her when they said it was an accident. I would pity you if you are that submissive to the Imperial State.

The crux of it is that Mary took her real photo well before the “Moorman” photo was taken. She took it at a time that the motorcycle cops were in regular formation, with Hargis leading and Martin back a ways, to create that attractive wing formation.

But, what happened after that is that Green braked which slowed the limo, and Hargis responded faster than Martin did. The result was that Martin gained on Hargis to where they were practically even.You can see it in the Muchmore film. And notice that in the Muchmore film that that JFK and Jackie look about the same as they do in the Moorman photo. You could say they look identical. And what do you think Babushka Lady is doing? SHE IS TAKING THE MOORMAN PHOTO.

So,the "Moorman photo" captured Hargis and Martin just as we see there in Muchmore, but Mary’s real photo did not. It captured Hargis well ahead of Martin. So, they wanted to restore what was in Mary’s original photo. So, they used the white thumbprint to blot out Martin, so that there’s only Harris. And then, they added some very crude art to show Martin behind Haris, in the proper formation.

So, in the collage, it shows on the left what the “Moorman” photo originally looked like. And on the right, it shows that Martin was there in front of Hargis. You can see Martin’s back and leg. You can see his toolbox behind him. And you can see that the front wheel that is in view is Martin’s front wheel.  Then, in the lower right corner, you can see their crude art-work, which consists of Martin’s right arm as he holds the handlebar. His arm doesn’t even look anatomical.

So, the bottom line is that Babushka Lady took the Moorman photo. Don’t believe the lies about BL. She was not Beverly Oliver. And she didn’t fail to come forward. It was just the opposite. She was an operative, and she turned her camera over to the plotters immediately. They sent her there to record the assassination. The scarf and the long coat were her disguise.

But, you need to think about the physics and the optics of the photo that BL took. She shot it at an angle from behind; so, on a diagonal. And that resulted in a much larger camera field than Mary’s photo. So, the Moorman photo is really a cookie-cutout of BL’s photo.  

And remember that the official story, that the FBI accidentally damaged Mary’s photo by pressing a thumb into it, is not plausible. It is simply impossible for that to have happened by accident.

 This is the photo that Mary Moorman took of her friend from church: Officer Glenn McBride. It was several minutes ahead of JFK. It's exactly what you would expect; a photo of his face. The only way she could get that was by taking the picture BEFORE he reached her. And, the only way she could capture the faces of the Kennedys, which she said was her intention, was by taking their picture BEFORE they reached her.

You should take a close look at this picture because JFK was probably in the exact same spot when she photographed him. McBride is probably right across from the Stemmons freeway sign, which is not in the picture. You do see the RL Thornton freeway sign, which is right above his head. That sign was different because instead of having narrow metal poles to support the sign, it had thick wooden posts. And you can see that in this photo. Notice how you can see the slope of the road. It really looks like he is going downhill. Mary kept saying that she was poised and positioned to take the photo of the Kennedys for quite a few seconds before she pressed the shudder. it's obvious that she was waiting for them to get as close to her as possible to maximize the capture of their faces before further progress of the limo started putting them in profile to her- which she didn't want. There was a "sweet spot" in which they were as large as possible and with their faces in full view. And I think she did a good job of capturing that sweet spot with Glenn McBride.

But, what reason is there to think that, starting as early as she did, having the camera trained on them well in advance, that she postponed taking the picture until they had passed her, leaving just the backs of their heads? There is no reason to think that at all. It is nonsensical. And with this picture of Officer McBride, Mary proved to us that she had no trouble capturing the sweet spot.

So, are you going to take the attitude that, despite all that, the Moorman photo shows the backs of their heads, therefore, it must be what Mary did? No! Don't do that. It is not good thinking. This is the JFK assassination- the evil and Machiavellian JFK assassination.

The feds kept going back to Mary to borrow her photo, over and over again. Why? it was admitted that, not only was the photo duplicated on 11/22/63, but they made a negative of it, so that they could make unlimited copies in the future. So, what did they keep needing Mary's original for? And then, they told her a preposterous story about how a white thumbprint got put on the photo. You can't press your thumb into a dry Polaroid photo and leave a mark. There would have to be some white, labile medium on your thumb to leave such a mark. But, why would there be any such medium on a FBI agent's thumb, and why would he handle the photo if there were? It is not credible. It is not plausible.

The thumbprint was deliberate. It had a purpose. It was to obscure something. And I will soon show you what it was.

But for now, I will leave you with this: I think the feds kept borrowing Mary's photo, over and over again, because each time, they altered it a little bit. And finally, they replaced it. But, there was something in the alternate photo that they needed to cover up. And they covered it up with the thumbprint.

 I am amazed that this video is still up on Youtube because it reveals so much about the JFK assassination. It's a video of Jean Hill and Mary Moorman that was shot months after the assassination. I believe it was done in the Spring of 1964.

Jean Hill came first, and you can skip her part. Just watch Mary who starts at 1:43.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx34V4-nk1M

The first thing she says is: "I stepped out into the street." Then, she shows how she took her picture, which was facing up Elm, that is, facing the approaching limo. She said she stood there for quite a few seconds "because I wanted to make sure that they were looking at me." She said, "I followed it for so many seconds, and then I did take the picture."

Now, we have to take her at her word. There is no basis to believe that she lied or that she didn't remember what she did. It's obvious from what she said that she wanted to capture their faces. And there is no reason to doubt that she did.

And a few minutes prior to that, she photographed her friend Officer Glenn McBride, whom she knew from church, and she captured his face the very same way she described capturing the faces of the Kennedys.

Over time, Mary changed her story. She started to deny that she stepped into the street. And she changed her story by saying that she didn't take the picture until the Kennedys were right across from her, directly in line with her. There is no reason to believe that she did that. We have to go by her first statement. But, her revised statement does not match the Moorman photo either. To match the Moorman photo, she would have had to say, "I waited until they passed me; then I shot the backs of their heads."

So, accepting what she first said, as we must do, we have to assume that the photo she took was very different from the Moorman photo that we have. In fact, it must have been the opposite of the Moorman photo. Instead of shooting them after they passed her, she shot them before they reached her. And instead of capturing the backs of their heads, she captured their faces, just as she captured the face of Officer Glenn McBride.

So, how did Mary Moorman come to accept the extant Moorman photo as her own? How did she talk herself into believing that that was the photo that she took?

I tell you that there was mind control involved. In 2013, she did a very long interview for the 50th. It was 4 hours long. I watched the whole thing. It used to be available on Youtube, but it no longer is.

But, in that interview, she said that after the assassination, federal agents kept coming back to her and borrowing her photo. The FBI. The CIA. The Secret Service. And the FBI again. And when the FBI returned it the second time, the big white thumbprint was on it, which they said was an accident.

Now, do you believe that? That the white thumbprint was an accident? If you do, you are either the dumbest mudderbloker who ever lived OR you are soaked in the blood of John Kennedy and Lee Oswald, both of whom were killed by the U.S. government.

But, when they returned that photo to her, which they said was accidentally damaged, what do you think they did? They admitted that they damaged her invaluable historical photo. Do you think they just made an apology and left it at that? What happens when a person damages someone else's property? What does the person who suffered the damage do afterwards? And in this case, the one that did the damage was the U.S. government. And what does the U.S. government have? It has a printing press. And what can it do with that printing press? It can create any amount of money that it wants. It can do it without a printing press. How is the U.S government paying for its evil, monstrous war on Iran right now that is costing billions every day, heaped on top of all the other spending?

I have no evidence that Mary Moorman was paid for the damage that was done to her photo. And she has never said that she was paid. But, the situation is that the U.S. government damaged her very valuable historical photo, and I can't imagine that they would do that damage without compensating her, especially since we live in a country in which damaging another's property results in legal judgments.

So, the question is: Why wouldn't they have given her some money? And by "some" I mean a substantial amount of money.

Again, I have no concrete knowledge of any payout to Mary, and everything I am saying is hypothetical. Mary has never said that she was paid any money. But, to the best of my knowledge, she has never said that she wasn't paid. Non-disclosure agreements get negotiated every day in this country.

Again, I am NOT claiming to know that Mary was paid. And I admit that she has never said that she was paid, and the U.S. government has never said that they paid her. However, I do know, concretely, that Marina Oswald was paid a lot of money after the assassination. There was money from a ghost-written book; money for Oswald's "Historic Diary" and $75,000 for the film rights to her life story that was paid to her by an Italian film company that never made the film and soon went out of business after paying her the money. That company was called "Tex-Italia." How appropriate.

And of course, Marina went on to tell the Warren Commission all the things that the FBI wanted her to tell them, including that Oswald sought to kill Nixon in Dallas in April 1963, even though Nixon wasn't in Dallas in April 1963.

But, enough about that. What I really want to talk about is what Mary's real photo captured. Since she got into the street and waited in the street for quite a few seconds before taking her picture, it means that the limo couldn't have been that close. Remember that Officer BJ Martin was hugging the curb on his motorcycle. So, how could she be in the street if he was bearing down on her? So, the limo and its escorts must have been a ways off.

So, what did Mary capture that was so dangerous to the official story? IT MUST HAVE BEEN WHATEVER HAPPENED BETWEEN THE TIME THAT JFK DISAPPEARED BEHIND THE FREEWAY SIGN AND THE TIME HE REAPPEARED ON THE OTHER SIDE. If you accept that what the Zapruder film has from frame 225 on is legit, then what did it matter if Mary captured the same thing? SHE MUST HAVE CAPTURED WHATEVER THE PHONY SIGN WAS PUT IN THERE TO HIDE.

So, what happened in that space? We're talking from frame 208 to 224. So either Mary captured JFK being shot in the throat OR she just captured him reacting to the back shot before he was shot in the throat. Either one was fatal to the official story.

Everything I have told you is true. JFK was shot in the back high on the hill with an ice dart containing a nerve agent that caused only a shallow wound. And it was long before he was shot in the throat by Umbrella Man, which was a puncture wound in the midline of his throat. And that shot too involved a dissolvable missile.