It is clear to me now that the images of Jean Hill and Mary Moorman in the Zaprduer film are bogus. On the left is a photo of Mary taken late that afternoon, and on the right is a Costella frame from the Z-film.

Note that how we source the Z-film is very important because with Photoshopping and now AI, anything is possible. We have to be sure we don't use something that was tampered with or digitally enhanced. But, we can trust the Costella frames.

1 Mary's raincoat had enormous white buttons, which we don't see in the Costella frame. You could claim one button in 303, but I also included 296 which shows no buttons at all. There is no rationalizing this. The buttons should be visible.

2 Mary's raincoat was extremely long. It appears to go all the way down to her ankles. But, in the Costella frame, it is not that long. On her left side, which is on our right, it only goes a little below her knee.

3 On the left, her coat is wrinkled and looks baggy on her, like it's a a size too big. On the right, it looks sleek, streamlined, and tight-fitting.

4 Mary's shoes in the Zapruder film do not correspond to what we see in the still photo, which is a mocassin-style loafer, although dressier than a mocassin. There is no basis to claim that the Zapruder frame displays Mary's shoe authentically, as seen so clearly and sharply in the still photo. It is another non-sequiter.

5 When we consider the above issues and then add the weird flow of Mary in the Z-film, where she continues to point her cameraa straight ahead even after the Kennedy's have passed her, it makes her entire presence in the film not just questionable but non-credible. I'm not questioning that she was there. Of course, she was. But, the imagery of her that was captured by Zapruder's camera got replaced with the crude imagery that we see in the film.

 Look what I found. This is from the day of the assassination, and Jean Hill said that "We were looking at the President, we were looking at his face. As Mary took the picture, I was looking at him, " Listen to it yourself. You can start at the 5 minute mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgmr03l4GFI&t=285s

Then, after that, "he grabbed his hands across his chest." I presume she was referred to his repsonse, raising his hands up to his throat. There is nothing else she could have been talking about.

So, it seems that Mary's real picture was taken right after the throat shot, which was followed by his reaction to it.

Like Mary, Jean said that there were several shots after Mary took her picture. Therefore, it had to be taken long before the fatal head shot because that was the final shot, and nobody disputes that.

 Supposedly, in the Zapruder film, Mary Moorman was still looking through her viewfinder when the fatal headshot occurred at 313, and she still waited longer to take her picture. The "experts" tell us that she didn't take it until 315 or 316.

But, Mary never said that. She said the opposite, that she took her photo at the time of the first shot.

And wouldn't she have turned to keep tracking the Kennedys? Why would she keep pointing her camera straight ahead when they had already passed her?

You have to admit that this is a bizarre image, and it is contrary to real life. In fact, is something that we have never seen except here, in the JFK assassination.

So, why didn't Mary turn? First, I'll tell you why she didn't turn in real life, and then I'll tell you why she doesn't turn in the film.

She didn't turn in real life because she finished taking her photo before they reached her, and then she got down on the ground. And she doesn't turn in the Zapruder film because they just added a still image to the film. It wasn't a moving image. So, that image couldn't turn. It's just art- crude, crappy CIA art. It's just a painting. And paintings don't move.

The real images of Jean Hill and Mary Moorman in the Zapruder film were taken out of it and replaced with bogus still images.

 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.