Mary Moorman Tells Story

[Davyjones]

Dealey and members/guests.I have been scratching my head about the significance of this interesting find.All we have been told is that the girls parked up at 10.30am and went shopping for film for the poleriod.I am not aware of any mention of the car being moved until they left for home many hours later.I suggest that the car pics 1 and 2 as shown in previous posts are from the position they first arrived at.Any movement of the car after this time would have been for security reasons? My opinion is that we should consider the photos as coming from the first parking position.This,if readers consider this opinion as reasonable,brings me back to the matter of the time of photos1 and 2.If the shadows on the pics can be read to show the time they were taken then we can find out at least two things.1. If the photos were taken at about 10.30am then Mary Moormans recent revised account(They went 6 blocks to a large store,bought film and returned to the car to take the photos) is not convincing. This if so casts doubt on her version of events.2 If the photos were taken on an old roll of film as the car arrived at 10.30am then there are 2 photos on the new roll not admitted by Mary but very much in line with Jean Hills story (she went up the steps and was accosted by SS,poleriods taken off her)I request anyone who can post a link or photo of ANYONE ELSE the scan of the Bell film,previously posted, could be, other than Jean Hill to PLEASE do so.JEAN HILL saw a gunman on the knoll...if she is correct then it matters.Mr Bugliosi says she is a Zany...he could not be more wrong from where I am sitting!

[Davyjones]

My last comment...honest.It is REMARKABLE to me that at NO time from 22/11/63 did anyone take Jean HILL up the knoll and ask her to finger the exact point she saw the shot coming from. I mean stand her next to the fence, pointing,to the exact spot.AND TAKE A PHOTOMaybe I have missed something? (If you have anything please enlighten me)Had this beeen done and with what we can deduce from the relevant merits of Mary Moormans recent interview and Jean Hills statements Jimmy Files story would be greatly enhanced.

[Dealey Joe]

Edit postDelete postReport this postInformationReply with quoteRe: MARRY MOORMAN-JEAN HILLby Davyjones » Sat Nov 19, 2011 3:12 pm Joe...I am glad you have opened this subject again.......Something new happened this year... Mary Moorman agreed to an hour long interview on a small TV programme for an antiques mall....iantiques. The interview went well enough...Mary Moorman is a pleasant ,nice lady she said it as she remembered it. I have no problem with that.I would ask all members interested in JFK to first check this interview out and post here what, if any, significant points struck you.Heres a few from me.Mary was on the grass all the time for the final head shots....Zapruder is OK.There are 2 photos missing from Marys account on this interview..no question, has to be.Jean Hill says photos where taken from her pocket.......Mary says it did not happen judge for yourself.Jean says she went up the steps to the railroad car park.....Mary says she didnt......she didJean says 4/5 shots...Mary says 3........over 48 years on she has forgotten she said 3/4 shots.Amazingly Mary now says the first shot was the head shot...that finally kills off the WC and everybody elseJean Hill some time later says she saw a knoll shooter......Mary says she did not....ITS TIME TO REVIEW JEAN HILLS STORY...she may have got the best grip on it.I plan to repost from another related topic on the form if readers show interest.

[Dealey Joe]

Moorman vs. Hillby John Zeroski » Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:31 pm I was re-reading the chapter on the Great Zapruder Film Hoax dealing with thw Moorman-in-the-street issue, when the same questions that have always plagued me regarding these friends surfaced, so I thought I would mention them on this form. To begin with, why so much antagonism over a minor issue such as this, as Moorman herself claims she did in fact step into the street to take her famous picture? If somebody needs a body captured by the Zapruder film to be in the street to prove alteration, it should be Jean Hill, and not Moorman. Here are a few short paragraphs from The Last Dissenting Witness (top of page 22): "Hey, Mr. President," Jean shouted impulsively when the car was almost abreast of her. "Look over here. We want to take your picture." In her desperation and excitement, she stepped off the curb into the street as she spoke, ALMOST TOUCHING THE FRONT FENDER of the limousine before she instinctively drew back. (My italics) Supposing Hill were two feet on the grass before she walked into the street, and supposing the limo stayed in the middle lane as it passed by, how many feet did Jean Hill have to go to reach a position so that she could almost touch the front fender? How wide is an Elm Street lane? She had to cross the south lane, didn't she? Would she have had to go into the middle lane at all to be that close? So how many feet? And she had to get back on the grass to make the Zapruder film authentic! How did she do that in so little time? And why didn't anybody at all in Dealey Plaza notice her movements and report them? Or has somebody? After all, if all eyes in the Plaza were on the limo, somebody would have noticed a movement of perhaps ten feet in each direction, especially somebody scurrying back onto the grass so as not to be hit by a motorcycle policeman. The men on the Triple Underpass were in a good position to notice her movement, why didn't they report it? After all, they saw the smoke from the rifle(s). What I find even more curious is how she appears in the Zapruder film. If the reader will look at Peter Whitmey's Jean Hill Lady-in-Red article on the internet, they will see Hill at frame 300 or so. Her legs appear to have been shortened. She appears to be casually looking to the east of the limo, although by now it appears that both Connally and Kennedy have been shot. Why would anybody be looking in that direction instead of at the limo? Coud she have been looking at the Harper fragment leaving the back of the President's skull? Did anybody ask her what she was looking at? Did she ever comment on this? In fact, if the reader will go to Assassinationscience.com and look at the dozen or so still frames of Hill, they may become very confused at where she appears to be looking. In two frames, 295-296 I believe it is, she makes a swift head turn that doesn't seem possible. This whole sequence strikes me as very odd. So once again, I ask myself, why bother with Mary Moorman when the Jean Hill "problem" really is the one that needs to be looked into, for if Hill were really so close to the limo as she claims, she should have been captured on the Zapruder film returning to the grass, and her movements would have been seen and commented upon.

[Dealey Joe]

MARRY MOORMAN-JEAN HILLby Dealey Joe » Wed Dec 14, 2011 4:34 pm http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arrb/index66.htm

[Dealey Joe]

An interesting topic that still can bear some work?

[Davyjones]

Well I never..who would have thought it.I stopped posting on this site and got rather active on the "JFK Searching for the Truth" Facebook site which was set up by Joe Hall and Wim Dankbaar,its now an open FB forum with chat from all comers on all topics JFK related.Anyway the Moorman interview came up as a topic and I got worked up again about it leading to me going back a few hours ago to the iantiques site to check out the 5 one hour specials hosted by Gary Stover which covered JFK.Marys interview was number 4 and the 5th one hour special was an inquest on what had been said in the previous weeks Moorman special.As you can see from the thread number 5 had a comment from Gary Stover that Mary had"CHANGED HER STORY OVER THE CAR PICS and was now saying to Stover that she had "NO FILM WHEN SHE ARRIVED AT DP..WENT SHOPPING, RETURNED TO THE CAR AND POSED THE PICS REGARDED AS 1 AND2" As I stated earlier,she had to change her story as if she had not then THERE HAD TO BE TWO MORE PICS.SUPPRISE....Interview No 5 with this admission on it from Gary Stover has been REMOVED from the video library on the site. The other 4 remain.No question there were 2 more pics taken than anyone else has ever realised for 48 years..apart from Jean Hill !!!!

[Davyjones]

Update....After some exchanges with Mary and Robin Unger the facts are.The car photos are taken with the original film in the camera and are number 7 and 8 on that roll,not 1 and 2 as was thought.Mary took all the photos in Dealey Plaza of the parade.Mary has no knowledge of photos 1 and 2 on the new roll and does not believe Jean took them.Clearly if Mary did not take the then by default Jean did out of Marys knowledge.The photos are not of the parade or the assassination and were taken after the car photos and when Mary took position on Elm for her three snaps.They wondered around for maybe an hour together previous and Jean did say "We" took some photos.My point is that this is yet again information covered up by in this case Gar Mack and possibly Groden . Mack published in 1984 in "Coverup" no 19 that this seems to have happened. Mack seems to have let it drop after that.The photos 1 and 2,missing are important as ALL photos taken that day add to the story.Its possible,but no more than that ,that Jean Hills daughter may have them but its a long shot. Otherwise we beg the question where are they,who saw them and what was on them.Why have the loss of them not been admitted and covered up?

[kenmurray]

Robin Unger puts Ralph to task on picking on a 82 year old woman:http://quaneeri2.blogspot.com

[Davyjones]

Ralph is saying things that are wrong....Mary did take the "famous photo" no question.here is Marys comment on a thread on this.....Mary Ann Moorman Krahmer Let me make this very CLEAR...Photos #1 and #2 were taking at the car way before the motorcade. #3 was McBride, part of the advanced on his way to the Trade Mart for the luncheon and was sold in the auction with #5. #4 was Lumpkin and was given to him in the weeks following the assassination as it would mean more to him and his family than to me. He later said it was lost. #5 was the JFK photo and was sold in 2013. No more photos were taken. Photos #7 and #8 were the last 2 on the old roll. These 2 and the first 2 on the new roll were in Jean's pocket and I never gave them another thought then or years after.Mary never took or saw the first two on the new roll and never saw Jean take them,but they existed for sure.