Another way to describe the situation in Moorman is that JFK is the target of the photo, and Officer Hargis is the outlying figure. Assuming the distance to the target is shorter, he should loom larger in the photo than the outlying figure. 

In the Muchmore frame, Mary is closer to JFK than she is to Hargis.

The Mary-Hargis line is longer than the Mary-JFK line. So, JFK should be larger. Here is an example of that:

You know who the target is. You can see that he's centered.  He is also in focus, and Mary said she did focus on the Kennedys. The umpire in black on the right is the outlying figure. Besides being blurred, he is much smaller than the central figure. Now, I realize that he is deep to the player, whereas Hargis was not deep to the Kennedys. But, he was to the right of the Kennedys, and if Mary shot the Kennedys when they were even with her, then her diagonal line to Hargis would have been longer, hence he should have been smaller in her photo.  

Now compare to the Moorman photo.

There is no central figure, and that's because the photo was not taken evenly but rather diagonally from behind. And Hargis looms much larger in the image than Kennedy. That was due entirely to his closeness to the photographer. There was a lineup that went Babushka, Hargis, Kennedy. So, Babushka had no choice but to capture Hargis larger.  But, Mary said that she took her photo evenly, meaning that the Kennedys were even with her. So, it wasn't a lineup; it was a triangle. It's not what she first said. At first, she said she was turned to the right and shot the Kennedys as they approached. 

And what's eerie is that she said that she hovered on the shutter for several seconds because "I wanted to make sure they were looking at me when I took the picture." 

 

What? Well, if that's true, then her picture must have shown them looking at her. And it makes perfect sense because she, naturally, wanted to capture their faces. Anyone would. 

But, the point is that if Tink were right that Mary shot them here:

then, the Kennedys would have been centered, and they would have loomed larger than Hargis from being closer to the camera. And we would not have the sense of looking at Hargis from behind. His face would be approaching from the right, in profile to us, similar to the umpire in the baseball photo.

That's how Mary would have captured Hargis, not like this:

Of course, Martin was there too, but you couldn't see either of their faces, The photographer was behind them and to their left, as they were looking right. Can't you see that that was the perspective of Babushka Lady? That's why the thumbprint had to be used. You don't believe it was an accident, do you? Mary could not have taken this photo. 

 

 Josiah "Tink" Thompson said that this image from the Muchmore film shows Mary Moorman taking her photo.

But, that's impossible because if Mary had taken her picture then, the Kennedys would have been centered in it. Supposedly, they were passing by her, and just as they got even with her, she snapped it. Bingo, they'd have been centered. But, they're not; they are left of center. 

So, the Kennedys are not centered but left of center, and the very large size of Hargis tells you that he was much closer to the camera. He is HUGE, so he was MUCH closer to the camera. And, there wasn't triangulation between the photographer and the two subjects; there was linearity. It went in a straight line from the photographer to Hargis to the Kennedys. That's the reason the sizes are so disproportionate. 

There are 2 photographers in the Muchmore frame: Mary Moorman and Babushka Lady. Mary's relationship to the two subjects (Kennedy and Hargis) is triangular, while Babushka's is linear.

This is very simple Physics and Mathematics. But, the only one of those two photographers could have captured the size disparity between Hargis and Kennedy in the Moorman photo, and that is Babushka. 

So, what is Mary Moorman doing there if she wasn't taking her picture? Why is she holding her camera up? I doubt that she was. Look how easily it could have been fabricated. 

Look how crude that imagery is on the left. A little black paint; you draw a box. Bingo: you've got a camera. You really can't make out her arm. It's all very crude and not even photographic. 

Tink was right that the image below does show when the Moorman photo was taken. But, it wasn't taken by Mary Moorman. It was taken by Babushka Lady.

 

 This is the November 25 Morristown Gazette from Pennsylvania. I put up the whole thing because it includes both the Moorman photo and the Altgens photo. The Moorman photo is highly cropped, eliminating the problematic area of the two motorcycle cops. As I have said for years, the Moorman photo actually contained both cops, Hargis and Martin, and ultimately, a thumbprint was used to obscure Martin. But, in this case, cropping did the trick. 

There is also a highly cropped version of the Altgens6, although it does include Oswald in the doorway. But, what makes it interesting is that the caption says that JFK was "grabbing his chest." He wasn't  doing that. He was raising his hands to his throat after being shot there. 

This is from the 26th from the Des Moines Tribune, and it is typical of many of the showings of the Moorman photo: cropped and blurred and fuzzed and severely over-lite in spots, all designed to limit what can be seen.  But, look on the right side of the photo. Don't you get the sense that there were two motorcycles there? There were. Hargis and Martin both got captured because they were both there, and they were practically aligned by that point. What happened was that they were braking, slowing down, but Martin did not decelerate as much as Hargis did, and so he caught up with him. Hiding the fact that there were two motorcycles there was the reason the thumbprint was added. 

 I now have a handle on the circulation of the Moorman photo in the newspapers. The earliest coverage was in the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram on November 23. They told the story of Mary and her photo but without publishing it. It said that Mary and Jean said they heard several more shots after she took her picture. And that's what Mary told me, that she took her picture at the time of the first shot. But, it's widely agreed that the Moorman photo was taken after the last shot.

Another thing reported in the Nov 23 article was that Mary said that she over-developed it, that she was supposed to remove it from the camera in no more than 1 minute, but she left it in for 3 or 4 minutes. The result was that it came out lighter than it should have. Has anyone ever said that about the Moorman photo? 

The Corpus Christie Caller also ran an article on the Moorman photo on November 23 but without publishing the image. 

The El Paso Herald did publish the Moorman photo on November 23, but it's really a sketch of it. 

I tell you that that photo was taken by Babushka Lady. She was the only one in the right position to take it the way it was took: diagonally from behind.  She was there to make a photographic record of the assassination for the perpetrators. Her scarf and long coat were her disguise. The FBI surely got her photos the same time they got Mary's. This is Babushka taking the Moorman photo. 

But, returning to the El Paso Herald, it surely is a sketch. It doesn't even look photographic. Look at the weird windshield to the inside of Hargis. It was clear glass or plastic and barely visible in the Moorman photo. So, why does it look the way it does? It's because it's a drawing.  

Why did they do it? Because: there were problems with Babushka's image which were solved by adding the white thumbprint to it later. But here they got around it by having an artist draw a clean sketch,

I found several papers that published it on the 24th, including the Arizona Republic. It involved more sketching, except this time, they admitted that it was retouched, and they named the artist who did it.

Would they have to do this if they weren't hiding something and up to no good? This was very poor work. Jackie was not configured correctly. She looks about 20 pounds heavier than she was, and she is not angled towards JFK the way she was in the photo. Plus, the light/dark contrast is all wrong. It's a terrible replica. 

Also, on November 24, the Birmingham News published it, but they resorted to severe cropping and sketching. 

That's even worse than the last one. Jackie looks huge compared to JFK. Her hair is all wrong. Her configuration is all wrong. And they didn't even have the decency to admit that it's a sketch of the photo.

Also on the 24th, the Press Democrat out of Santa Rosa CA published the Moorman photo. They did not resort to sketching. They did publish the tele-photo. But, they resorted to blurring, darkening, cropping, and hazing it up on the lower right. 

Again, this is NOT Mary's photo. Her photo was taken at the time of the first shot, and that's by her own words- spoken then and now. The "Moorman photo" was taken at the time of the last shot. It may have been a fraction of a second before the last shot.

So, every one of these papers resorted to obfuscation, but they went about it in different ways. But, how did that come to do that? They say that J. Edgar Hoover had an agent at every newspaper in the country. 

The Lawton Constitution out of Oklahoma just cropped, darkened, and blurred the hell out of it. 

That's all I have from the 23rd and 24th. There were some on the 25th and 26th which I'll cover next time. But, this could not possibly be Mary's photo. She demonstrated how she took her photo: looking up the street to her right. 

Right there, she was holding up that card as a surrogate for her camera, showing what she did. I can tell you exactly when she took her photo: it was a split-second before JFK was shot in the throat. The reason I say that is because that is what she said at the time, that she took her picture right before the first shot, a split-second before. But, she could not have been talking about the actual first shot because that was taken very high on the hill, and she would have had no interest in photographing him from that far away. In other words, the limo was still next to the Depository.  So, what she thought was the first shot was actually the second shot. And many people were not aware of the first shot. More people were not aware it than were aware of it.  But, as you look at her above demonstrating, try to imagine her capturing the Kennedys in her viewfinder, and then letting them pass her and shooting them from behind. I tell you: it would have been insane to do that, and she didn't do it. She shot it as you see her doing it above. 

Now I have found something I never thought I would find: a version of the Moorman photo that shows the helmet of BJ Martin. I told you he was in the photo; and he was. And I have been saying for years that the purpose of the thumbprint was to take him out of the photo, and now I have proof. 

First: here is the standard one with the thumbprint.

Here is the person who took the photo, Babushka Lady, showing her setup and what she saw. You see the two helmets of the cops. 

And here is the version of the Moorman photo showing Martin's helmet.

So, in this case, they just put a smudge over Martin's face but left his helmet. 

If you're wondering where I found this, it's from a video of Mary Moorman and Jean Hill that was taken sometime after the assassination. There's no date on it. I'm thinking it was weeks later, not days. That's because they don't seem rattled; they are in good spirits; and if it were just days later, I should think they'd still be rattled. Maybe it was even months later because the weather looks warm. Jean is wearing a light summer dress with short sleeves. So, maybe it was the following Spring.  

It was a demonstration. Mary was holding something in her hands that was a surrogate for her camera, and she acts out what she did. And what she did was step out into the street; she turned; and she was facing the top of Dealey Plaza. She said she started looking through her viewfinder early. She said she followed them for "quite a few seconds, and then I did take the picture." 

So, there she is doing what she did on November 22. I'll give you the link to the video. I have downloaded it. So, if it gets taken down, I'll put it back up. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0hh_9pHNSE&list=PPSV

When she got to saying, "After so many seconds, I did take the picture," it jumped to the Moorman photo, but not the standard one; rather, the one showing Martin's helmet. 

So, she shot the Kennedys as they approached. That was the only way to capture their faces, which was what she wanted. She certainly didn't wait until they passed her and then shot them from behind. 

But, later on, she started saying that she didn't take the picture until they were right even with her. Here she is with Matt Lauer decades later.

I think that was 2013. Notice that she is well back on the grass now, so no more going out into the street. And now the story became that she didn't take the picture until they were right even with her. Keep in mind that that still doesn't work for the Moorman photo. She would have had to tell him that she waited until they passed her; then she turned left; and then she shot them from behind. But, the truth was about 135 degrees different. She was turned and looking up Elm St. when she took her picture. 

And think about this: I assume she DID go out into the street because that's what she said in the beginning.  But, would she have done that if the limo were close? No! Because it wasn't just the limo. There were two motorcycle cops. How far could Martin have been from the curve? Here he is in the Altgens photo.

He isn't that far from the curb. She wouldn't have gotten into the street if he was anywhere close, barreling down on her. She aimed her camera early, and she took her picture early. 

And what did she capture? She must have captured JFK after he was shot in the back but before he was shot in the throat. So, he looked bad and stricken before he was allegedly shot. He was shot in the back high on the hill, and he rode down the hill reacting to that, only to that. They removed every bit of that from the Zapruder film. And that is why he gets to the freeway sign so fast in the Zapruder film. That is why they had to move the freeway sign up in the Zapruder film. Mary's actual photo exposed all of that. 

Does her actual photo even exist anymore? Is it locked away in a safe somewhere? I think it's unlikely, but you never know. I never thought I'd find a version of the "Moorman photo" showing Martin's helmet, but now I have.  

 Why the photographic fakery of Mary Mooman in the Z film?

Her image doesn't change. Here she is at 293, and it looks perfect for her to snap the shutter and be done.

But no; in 299, she's still at it. The Kennedy's have moved such that Jackie is now blocking her view of JFK. 

I don't see how she's going to capture JFK now, when Jackie is blocking her view of him.  Mary looks about the same except for her coat being open, exposing her white pants. But, I have to wonder if it's real or if they just blackened it out in 293. 

But after that, it never changes. She looks the same, and she points the camera in the same direction. Here she is in 310. 

The last frame of her is 314, which is the same.

The official story has it that she didn't take her picture until 316, in which you can't even see her.

So, do you think Mary waited for hours in the warm sun only to have the Kennedys slowly approach her, but she waited until they passed her, and then shot the back of their heads? You buying that, are you? 

Well, since I don't think she was insane, I think she took her photo at 293, or even earlier. But, they copied her image and placed it in subsequent frames to sell the idea that she didn't take her picture until 316.  Why? Because the Moorman photo corresponds to 316. So, what gives? What gives is that that isn't her photo. They destroyed her photo and replaced it with the one that we have, which was taken by Babushka Lady. Why did they do that? It was because Mary's photo must have shown something that was just too damaging to the official story.  

And what about the accidental white thumbprint? It was no accident. It was deliberate. It was put there to cover up BJ Martin. You see, the Moorman photo was taken at a diagonal angle from behind. Like this:

That's the photographer who took it: Babushka Lady. And that's the reason why the Kennedys aren't centered in the picture.

So, the thumbprint covered up Martin. This is how it looked before.

Somebody used Photoshop to try to remove the thumbprint, and this is what they got. His head is missing, but you can see much of his body.

Look at the depth of the front wheel of the bike. Then look at the depth of Hargis in the white helmit. He is deeper in the picture than the front wheel is. That's because it's not his front wheel. It's BJ Martin's front wheel.

I don't claim to know this, but I suspect that when the FBI brought Mary the photo with the thumbprint that they also brought a check. After all, they damaged her very valuable historical photo. Why shouldn't they have to pay damages? And I suspect they were nice about it. They offered to pay. "No lawsuit needed; but let's keep this confidential."  

I admit that this is all conjecture. I have no proof or evidence. But, I do have a similar case: Marina Oswald. They needed her to tell certain things to the Warren Commission about Oswald. And during the time of her "protective custody," a lot of money came her way. Money from caring Americans, money for Oswald's Historical Diary, money to let Priscilla Johnson write a book about her, a huge amount for the film rights to her life story from an Italian company, and they never even made the film. One of the first things she did was hire a business agent.   

But, the big question is: what was in the photo that Mary actually took that was so damaging? Well, I guarantee you it wasn't some shooter, such as Badgeman. They kept borrowing and returning her photo, and if it was just that, they could easily have fixed it. No, it was JFK. She said she was only 15 feet away from him. It had to be him- what it showed of him in the limo. 

Here is Mary talking about it shortly afterwards, though not the same day. You'll hear her say that she was in the street when she took the photo.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0hh_9pHNSE 

Look where she is. She is in the street. And look where she's facing. She's facing up the street. She had them in her viewfinder long before they reached her. 

She said she "followed them for so many seconds, and then took the picture." But, did she actually wait for this? 

From where she started, she would have had to turn 135 degrees to take that photo. That would have been insane.  

So, what did her camera see when she pressed the shutter? Well, she has always said that she took her photo at the same time as the first shot, and it was followed by 2 or 3 more shots. So, how could she have taken the Moorman photo, which was taken after the last shot? 

However, I doubt she heard the sound of the first shot. It was taken high on the hill from the Dal-Tex building, when Kennedy was barely out of the intersection, and it put the poison ice flechette into him.  She was too far away from that. So, what she thought was the first shot was probably the second shot. So, maybe she caught Kennedy right before he was hit in the throat. Maybe she caught a picture of him reacting to the first shot, which showed that he was in distress, great distress, even though officially, he wasn't supposed to be hit yet. 

Now can you understand why they had to get rid of her photo?

It is iron-clad that the feds kept borrowing her photo, again and again and again, even though they made perfect copies on November 22. So, since they had the copies, why did they keep needing her original? It had to be because that's the one that had to be altered. 

And ultimately, they made the decision to replace it. 

Now, if you think that is too fantastical to be true, then you tell me why Mary would let the Kennedys slowly approach her, and then let them pass her, only to shoot the backs of their heads. If you've got a good explanation for that, I'd like to hear it.  

 

P.S.  You really have to laugh about this because, apparently, Rufus was worried not just for Johnson but also for himself. I say that because he, presumably, got himself so low on the floor of the back seat that we can't see a hide nor hair of him. He didn't have to get himself that low to protect LBJ, did he? 

So, if he was determined to do that for himself, to get down that low, wouldn't he have had the decency to say something to Ladybird and Yarborough, such as, "Get down; take cover; there's a gunman"? 

So LBJ gave Rufus Youngblood an award even though he showed not the slightest concern for LBJ's wife. I guess he never heard the old adage, "Women and children first."

Of course, the whole story was a lie. LBJ was in his seat, crouching and undoubtedly looking very glum, like he knew what was coming, which he did. Still, let's have a little fun:

Senator Yarborough: Say, Ladybird. I hate to interrupt our smiles, but do you find it strange that your husband and his bodyguard are lying over our feet on the floor like they're in a rugby pileup?

Ladybird: Nah, that's Lyndon for you. He's got a yellow streak a mile long. 

Senator Yarborough: Well, I don't know. They look awfully close together down there. I hope they remembered to use mouthwash this morning.  Ha ha. 

Ladybird: Yeah, I see what you mean. But tell me, do you think something could be wrong? I mean, are we in danger?

Senator Yarborough: Oh no. Are you kidding? I'm a Senator, and you're the Second Lady. Surely, he cares about us too. If there was any danger, he'd tell us... wouldn't he? 

Ladybird: Theoretically, yes. But remember who his boss is. 

Senator Yarborough thinks about that for a moment. Then he bolts to get down, and Ladybird does too at the same time, and they bang heads, then continue trying to take cover.