Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

Robert Harris

9:38 PM (2 hours ago)

Ralph Cinque wrote:
> And if I give you the verbatim citation and source, are you going to admit
> that you are wrong? Just like you have been wrong about so much other
> stuff, including your whole interpretation of the crime?
>
> Mary Moorman did a 4 hour interview leading up to the 50th, and she
> covered it in there. It starts here:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X89bD5rDpBw

Just tell me where to move the timer to where she said she
dropped the camera from her face, prior to hearing the last
two shots.

>
> She also said it to me, personally, in a message on Facebook.
>
> http://tinypic.com/r/1zw3s1/9

First, she did not say that she dropped the camera before
those shots and second, there is no way to confirm that you
did not alter the screen capture.

It would seem quite amazing that she said something to you,
which was different than anything she ever said before,
during the past 52 years.



Robert Harris 

Ralph Cinque: 

No way to confirm that I did not alter the screen capture?

What do you mean? Is it that you assume that I, Ralph Cinque, would bold-faced lie, put words in Mary Moorman's mouth and tell the world she said them?  You're assuming that I would be inclined to do that and that I would assume to be able to get away with it. I don't assume that you assume that of everybody, but apparently, you, Robert Harris, assume it of me.

And you are supposed to be a serious JFK investigator, right? So, not having heard that interview Mary Moorman did in 2013 for the 50th anniversary, why wouldn't you listen to it? Even when I point you to where you can hear what the woman said, you still won't do it. 

Here is Part 2 of her interview. Go to 8 minutes 28 seconds.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgNF-sPW8YI

Interviewer: The first noise, that we now know was a shot, when did that occur in relation to your picture?"

Mary: I heard that when the camera was still up in my face. I heard the noise. I heard the sound.

Interviewer: Had you taken the picture yet? 

Mary: At the same time. Simultaneous. 

Interviewer: Photographic evidence does confirm that this picture was taken within 2/9 of a second of the shot.

(RC: No. That is not correct. It was 2/18 of a second after the last shot. The Moorman photo has been correlated to Zapruder 315, and the last shot, the fatal head shot, occurred at Zapruder 313. So, the Moorman photo was taken after the final shot.)

Interviewer: Did you hear a second shot? 

(RC: This guy is completely confused. He thinks he's talking about the first shot, but the Moorman photo was taken after the last shot.)

Mary: Yes, immediately. 

(RC: Mary already stated that she took her picture simultaneous with the first shot. So, her picture has been taken. Then, immediately, she heard another shot.)

Mary: It was like: Pow. Pow-Pow. 

(RC: Note that this is exactly what she told me (for which Robert Harris accused me of altering the screen capture) except that she used "Bam" instead of "Pow" in talking to me. 

Mary: After the second shot, I was looking at this man, and I thought to myself, 'I saw his hair jump.'

(RC: But, she'd already taken her picture. Right? And now she's talking about the second shot, the third shot is yet to come, and the Moorman photo came after that.)

Interviewer: Did it seem like he got hit by the first and second shot?

Mary: Well, I'm not sure about the second shot except that I did see something happen to him.

(RC: Presumably, she had her camera down at that point and was looking at him directly. SHE WAS THROUGH TAKING HER PICTURE!)

Interviewer: Was there a following shot?

Mary: Yes, I heard three shots.

Interviewer: Let's review the most widely accepted belief, which is that the first shot missed, and it was followed by a second shot which hit JFK in the back, and then there was a third shot, the fatal head shot, which is depicted in the Moorman photo. So, I guess you didn't hear the first two shots?

(RC: What?? Why would he assume that? She wasn't deaf. She was only 29 years old, and her hearing was fine. She said, as she has always said, that she took her photo at the time she heard the first shot, and then she heard two more shots. She has said that repeatedly and consistently. She said she HEARD three shots total. So, how can he suggest that she didn't hear the first two shots?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgNF-sPW8YI

What we have here is a guy who is trying to reconcile Mary's account with the known facts about the Moorman photo, but it can't be done. You can't get a square peg into a round hole, and you can't get this to work either. Mary said that she heard three shots, which she depicted as Pows or Bams. Three of them. So, if this guy's contention is true,  that what Mary thought was the first shot was actually the third and final shot, then what were the sounds she heard afterwards? They sounded like shots to her. So, what were they? 

Mary Moorman did NOT take the Moorman photo. It was taken by Babushka Lady, whose photo was converted into a Polaroid. Then, the white thumbprint was added deliberately to hide whatever they were hiding. The Moorman photo was taken on a diagonal from behind, which is not in question. It has been confirmed mathematically by a Physics professor. But, Mary has never claimed to have waited until the Kennedys passed her and then shot them from behind on a diagonal. 

She didn't take the Moorman photo. She really didn't.