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

 

The first image shows where Mary Moorman was according to the Zapruder film, which was directly across from Zapruder. 

But, Mary placed herself higher on Elm Street,  which was further east and closer to Houston Street. She was farther from the Triple Underpass. 

Here is a conservative estimate of where she really was, and I say conservative, because she may have been higher than this. 

And she certainly did not wait until they passed her and then shoot them from behind. She was interested in their faces, not the backs of their heads. In fact, if you look at the photo, you can see a car on the right edge, and it is approximately where the limo was in the Zapruder film when Mary, supposedly, took her picture. So, you would have to believe she waited all those hours only to let them creep by her and then shoot the backs of their heads. 

The picture that Mary took captured JFK when he was already shot in the back but not in the throat. So, his look was like nothing we see in the Zapruder film. It may have been like what the original Zapruder film captured, but they took 12 years to get it in condition to show the public. I suspect Mary's real picture showed JFK looking distraught and confused, and it looked nothing like the so-called "Moorman photo." So, how did they get Mary to accept it? 

Money. I'd be willing to bet that they paid her money; a lot of money, and I mean for damaging her historic photo with their thumb print.  They paid Marina Oswald a lot of money to spew their lies about Oswald.  They got an Italian film company to pay her $125,000 for the rights to make a movie that would include her story, but they didn't have to pay her anything. It was public domain. It was just an excuse to pay her. And they never did make the movie. And the company was a flash in the pan; it vanished. $125,000 in 1964 was like a million today.

Mary has always said that she took her picture at the time of the first shot and that she heard at least two more shots after she lowered her camera. The Zapruder film has her taking her picture at the time of the fatal head shot, with no other shots following. What a major discrepancy! How do they explain it? They don't! She's a nice lady. She's a loyal American. You be nice to her. You show her a lot of respect. So, you never say to her: "Mary, you've always said that you took your picture at the time of the first shot, but the Zapruder film shows you taking it at the time of the last shot. And since we don't doubt the Zapruder film, we have to doubt you. Therefore, you did NOT take your picture at the time of the first shot. You took it at the time of the last shot. You got that, Mary?" 

No, you don't say that shit to her. You just ignore it. Most people aren't awake enough to recognize the discrepancy anyway. So, just let the sleeping dog lie. Sit back and watch the green grass grow. No harm/no foul. 

But, for the record, I think she took her photo a little before the ice flechette hit Kennedy in the back.  Because: her picture must have shown his reaction to it. If it didn't, then it would not have been a problem. If it was taken before, then presumably, he was still smiling and waving, and all was well.  But, all was not well. She captured JFK doing something that was not part of the story: reacting to the back shot before he entered the Kill Zone.