According to the U.S. government, Mary Moorman still hasn't taken her photo yet in this frame. And that is insane because Mary waited there for hours, and she saw the limo when it turned onto Houston Street, and she brought her camera up to her eye as soon as it made the turn onto Elm Street. And even though she was poised and ready to take her picture as soon as the limo was on Elm, she let the Kennedys pass her a long way before she pressed the shutter? Nobody on Earth would do that. Not one of the 8.3 billion people on Earth would do that.

 Now, let’s peer into the Looking Glass to see what really happened with the Moorman Photo. Are you aware of the things Mary said on 11/22/63 and soon thereafter? I have audio files of everything she said. Here is one of them. You can listen to it.

https://soundcloud.com/ralphcinque/mary-moorman-spring-1964

So, she stepped out into the street, and she made sure they were looking at her, and then she took her picture. And be aware that when she was saying that, she was in the street and turned and facing eastward. She wasn’t facing across Elm; she was facing up Elm. So, why does the Zapruder film show her back on the grass and shooting across Elm? Because: the Zapruder film is bogus.

If Mary had taken her picture under those conditions, it wouldn’t look like the Moorman photo because Jackie would have been blocking Mary's view of JFK. And they don’t claim that her picture was taken then. That is Z300, and they claim her photo was taken at Z315, after the fatal head shot. Yet, they use Z300 to show when she took her picture. I also have an audio file of Mary saying that she took her photo at the time of the first shot and that several shots followed.

Mary said that, following the assassination, the feds kept borrowing her photo. But why? Not only were many copies made on 11/22, but a negative of it was made, so that they could make unlimited copies. So, what did they need hers for?

So, first the FBI borrowed it; then the Secret Service; then the CIA, and then the FBI borrowed it a second time. When they returned it after borrowing it a second time, it had the infamous white thumbprint. She said they never told her how it happened.

So, they damaged her invaluable historical photo and just returned it without explaining?

“Here’s your photo back, Mary. It has a white thumbprint on it now. Have a nice day.”

No, no, no. Nobody would do that. Not even the feds.

And how exactly could a white thumbprint get on it? As I explained, there is no plausible, credible way that that could have happened by accident.

So, the FBI added the thumbprint, and there is no doubt about it.

And it was damage to her invaluable historical photo. When you damage someone’s property, you have to compensate them. The FBI knows that. Everyone in America knows it.

And we are talking about the U.S. government, which has unlimited money because it can print any amount of money for any reason whatsoever.

So, I tell you that they surely must have brought a check with them when they returned her photo damaged. Mary never said that, but I’m also sure they brought a non-disclosure agreement with them for her to sign before they gave her the check.

Now, I admit that I have no proof of this. What I’m saying is based entirely on supposition. But, we live in a country in which when you damage someone’s property, you have to pay them. And that is not a supposition.

And I strongly believe that, in this case, they made the check big and fat- that it was an eye-opening amount of money. Why? Because: they were returning to her a photo that was not only damaged, but its content was vastly different. Instead of showing their faces, like Mary’s photo of Officer Glenn McBride, it showed the backs of their heads. It is simply not plausible that Mary waited until the Kennedys passed her to take her picture.

Furthermore, the Moorman photo was taken at a diagonal angle from behind, and I have a Physics professor, with a specialty in Optics, who will testify to that in court, as my expert witness, if necessary. I won’t tell you his name, but I will tell you that he teaches at a college in Texas.

So, for Mary to have taken the Moorman photo, she would have had to turn past perpendicular. But, there are no images of her turned past perpendicular, and she never claimed to turn past perpendicular. Even though she originally said that she was facing the Kennedys and shooting their faces, she eventually started saying that they were directly across from her when she took the photo. But, that doesn’t cut it because if she had taken the picture then, they would have been centered in the photo, which they are not, and it would have looked very different. Whoever took the Moorman photo took it diagonally from behind.

I have multiple diagrams that were drawn by the Physics Professor. I am posting one of them here.

And he is a professor who lectures other Physics professors about Optics. And he insists that the content of the Moorman photo tells us that it was taken by someone who was diagonally behind the Kennedys on the south side of Elm.

I think Mary Moorman was played. I think all those visits by the feds had a dual purpose, one of which was to size her up; to find out how respectful she was of Authority; how compliant she was when told to believe something by Authority. I think Mary was MK-ULTRA’d. It was nothing heavy duty. I’m sure it didn’t involve drugs or sleep deprivation or subliminal messages or shock waves. (Read: Poisoner in Chief: Sidney Gottlieb and the CIA Search for Mind Control by Stephen Kinzer.) But, I think that with kind, gentle voices those feds prepped Mary to accept a photo that was taken by somebody else as her own.

It is simply impossible that Mary Mooman took the Moorman photo because Physics says so. And when the Professor told me that the Moorman photo was taken at a diagonal angle from behind, I showed him this frame of Babushka Lady in the Muchmore film, he said: “Bingo. That’s who took it.”

 Robert Groden has a video about the Dave Wiegman film. Never mind what that charleton says about it. The truth about it is that it shows Oswald in the doorway. But, only in the first pass. Wiegman did a second pan of the doorway. He turned around to shoot it again, and it must have been because there was a commotion there. And by the time his camera got there the second time, Oswald was gone., and they put in a still image of someone else. So, the first Wiegman Doorman is Oswald, and the second Wiegman Doorman is nobody.

This is the first Wiegman Doorman, and he is Oswald. However, the film was deliberately degraded and distorted to make him unrecognizable. But, to sell it, they had to distort the whole film. They couldn't just distort the doorway.

But, this issue reached national prominence. Congresswoman Luna went on national television and said that the Wiegman film showed Oswald (it did) and that NBC is hiding the original, undistored one.

I doubt that that's true. I assume the original was destroyed. But, I was alive then. I remember watching tv in the 1950s. The picture wasn't as good as we're used to today, but it was not as bad as the Wiegman film. The Wiegman film is grotesquely bad. AND THAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO REALIZE: THAT THE APPALLING QUALITY OF THE WIEGMAN FILM TELLS US THEY WERE OUT TO DECEIVE US.

So, here is the film about the 1936 Berlin Olympics shot by Leni Riefenstahl who was imprisoned for 4 years after WW2 for having made propaganda films for Hitler. Don't you think that by 1963 they should have had better movie cameras than they had in 1936? So, here is the 1936 film:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frVw5XQMCb0

And here is the Wiegman film from 1963, first at regular speed and then in slow-motion.

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

Toward the end of the film when it's shooting Newman and others on the Grassy Knoll, the images are sharper, but still not as good as the 1936 film.

So yes, the Wiegman film was degraded and distorted to obscure Oswald in the doorway. And personally, I doubt that the undistored original film still exists. It makes no sense for them to have kept it. What for? Only to have to guard it under lock and key for the rest of time? No, no, no; they must have destroyed it.

 Do you think that they were telling us the truth about the Midnight Press Conference? Then look at these conflicting images of Jack Ruby at the MPC. On the left, he is up against a table in the corner, which is about what he said he did. But, there are two images of him milling with reporters, as if he was a reporter. The two images are about the same, but in the bottom image, he looks thinner and younger. There is no excuse for both those images to exist. And there is no excuse for either one to exist if the first image is valid.

There is nothing about the official story of the MPC that makes sense. The very having of it makes no sense. Who gives a man considered to be a double murderer a press conference? And do you know how long it lasted? One minute, almost exactly. Who holds a press conferene for one minute? And you can see that it was suddenly and very abruptly aborted. Why? Beacuse Oswald was doing so much damage.

 A Nicholas Kilburn has contacted me to inform me about his project entitled: The People vs. Lee Harvey Oswald. It's to simulate Oswald's trial with the assumption that it happened no later than March 1, 1965. So, how would Oswald's trial have gone?

The answer is that Oswald could not be tried. There is no way the plotters could let that happen. It would have been a disaster for them, and they knew it. And it was worse than that because they couldn't even let Oswald see a lawyer: not even once.

Don't you find it strange that Ruby didn't even ask for a lawyer, but they got him one. Ruby was allowed to talk to a lawyer before he even spoke to Fritz. But, Oswald, who wailed about wanting a lawyer wasn't given one.

And what's really chilling is that on Sunday afternoon, Fritz was talking to reporters after Oswald had died, and he said that Jack Ruby was consulting with his lawyer, "which is his right." His right? What about Oswald's right?

And before you tell me that Oswald was offered a lawyer, which he turned down, I tell you that that never happened. The Oswald of fame never met with H. Louis Nichols. That was damage control- from Oswald's Midnight Press Conferrence where he wailed to the world about being denied a lawyer. They waited until Saturday evening when Oswald was taken to his evening interrogation to bring Nichols up to the Jail to visit with Oswald, but the man he saw and spoke with was an Oswald double.

They were never going to let Oswald talk to a lawyer. They were going to kill him before that happened. And they did; eventually. They hoped he would be killed in the Texas Theater, but that didn't work out. Then, they hoped they could kill him at the Midnight Press Conference, but they couldn't pull that off either. Then, after doing the damage control on Saturday evening, they finally succeeded at killing him on Sunday morning.

So, why couldn't they let Oswald talk to a lawyer? It's because the lawyer would surely learn from him that he was standing in the doorway during the motorcade. And then, the lawyer would have showed him the Altgens photo and asked, "Is that you?" And Oswald would have said "Yes, but they tampered with my image." But, he would have had no trouble convincing the lawyer that he was telling the truth.

Then, the lawyer would have asked him if he mail-ordered a rifle from Chicago, and Oswald would have said no. Then, the lawyer would have told him what the FBI was saying, and Oswald would have reacted aghast. And he would have had no trouble convincing the lawyer that there wasn't a word of truth to it.

Everything would have come out: the bogus Backyard photos, the reason he left the doorway to go to the 2nd floor lunch room (Bill Shelley ordered him to); how he he got to the lunch room (using the elegant stairs in the southeast corner and walking across the second floor) that he never ordered a pistol from Seagate Distributors, that he did not kill Tippit, that he never shot at General Walker, etc. And through it all, Oswald would have come across as lucid, sane, and not the least bit deranged. Oswald would have repeated to him, "Why would I shoot President Kennedy? I had no reason to do it. I had no desire to do it. And I had no thought to do it. It's insane."

And what the lawyer would have gotten from that first session was that the government was framing Oswald, which meant that the government must have killed Kennedy.

So, the answer is that there was zero chance that Oswald would be or could be tried. Oswald could die. That was the only thing he could do. And that was baked in the cake before 11/22/63.

So, don't waste time speculating about how the trial of Oswald would have gone. There was never going to be a trial. They had every intention of killing him the same day, before he ever talked to the Police, let alone a lawyer.

The problem with speculating about how the trial of Oswald would have gone is that the inquiry itself implies that there was some case against him. But, there wasn't. There wasn't a speck of evidence against Oswald.

You have to realize that for Oswald to have shot at Kennedy, he would have had to be insane. But, he was not insane, and he showed that to reporters at the MPC, where he was the most lucid person in the room. And it was because he was so lucid that they had to put that racket over his voice in the tapes, including a guy issuing a firing squad order, "At ease!"

So, I say: don't respect the killers by acting like there was a reasonable case they might have made against Oswald at trial. All we need say about it is that they knew they couldn't try Oswald. That is the truth, and it speaks volumes.

 There are several things I would like to point out about this plat of Dealey Plaza. I'll do them one at a time. The first one is to point out where Robert Croft and Tina Towner were. They were both at the top of the Plaza, close to the intersection of Houston and Elm. Tina was at the intersection, right at the corner. Coft was on Elm, a little down from the corner, but not much. So, they were close to each other.

And they both followed the limousine, Croft with his still camera, and Tina with her movie camera. But, Tina's film should have included Croft's photo. Croft's photo, or something very close to it, should have been a frame in Tina's film. But, it is not. We do not see the Croft Laides in the Towner film. And we don't even see the retaining wall in the Towner film. We see the TSBD, and then it gets to the obelisk, and then we see the pergola, but that whole area that Croft captured is not in the Towner film. So, why not?

Well, I don't assume the laws of physics and optics got violated that day. I assume they didn't want to show us what she captured of that, and so they got rid of it.

And the TSBD entrance looks very weird too. It's mostly black , and the figures in it aren't discernible.

Do you realize that there are no two images of the doorway that look the same or even similar, that every single one is distinctly different from the rest?

guess they never expected anyone to compare them. But, someone did.

 So, as his Secret Service agents had the door open on Elm Street, at the same time LBJ was scooting down his seat in the Veep car ahead of them. What I mean by that is that he scooted his butt forward in the seat and probably had his knees pressed against the seatback in front in order to get his head down. It shows in the Altgens photo.

I have what is probably the best version of the Altgens photo. I got it from Dr. Gerald McKnight. I was privileged to be able to connect with him near the end of his life. I never met him in person, but I had 5 or 6 long phone calls with him. He was bedridden at the time and within months of the end, but his mind was still sharp.

Notice that Lady Bird and Senator Yarborough look quite good, meaning high resolution. So, why don't we see LBJ? It's not because he was scooted down so low that he disappeared. I think that when the CIA photo-alterers saw it, they saw him scooted down, and they realized that that looked bad; real bad. So, they took him out.

The arrow that I put there is actually pointing to his Secret Service Agent Rufus Youngblood, who was Native American. LBJ actually had the nerve to claim that Rufus turned around, grabbed him, and threw him down to the floor of the car. Then, he climbed over the seatback and lied on top of him. Do you believe that? If you do, stop it because Senator Yarborough said it never happened. And the Laws of Physics say it never happened. That's beause the floor of the car was occupied by the legs and feet of Lady Bird and Senator Yarborough. So, how oculd even one man lie on the floor, let alone two?

And observe the expressions on the faces of Lady Bird and Senator Yarborough. They are not looking distressed. They both seem festive. And that is clear evidence that what I have told you about the Altgens photo is true, that the imagery of JFK and Jackie in it is bogus. The throat shot didn't happen yet. That happened later and lower on the hill. The Altgens photo was taken high on the hill right when JFK was shot in the back. But, that was practically silent, and it may have been completely silent to the occupants of the VEEP car. Those two don't look like they are aware of anything dire. Don't you agree? They look like happy campers to me. And that should tell you that this photo was taken early- long before JFK was shot in the throat.

LBJ actually gave an award to Youngblood for saving his life. They had a big ceremony for it at the White House, and Youngblood brought his wife and many kids. But, I bet he hated every second of it because he knew the truth, that it never happened.