Moorman vs. Hill

Knowing the truth about the Kennedy Assassination is understanding America today.

Moderators: Bob, Phil Dragoo, Dealey Joe, kenmurray, dankbaar

Moorman vs. Hill

Postby John Zeroski » Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:31 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 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.
John Zeroski
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:49 pm

Postby andy robertson » Tue Aug 08, 2006 7:55 pm

some really good points there that have to be explained
andy robertson
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 9:12 pm
Location: scotland

Return to Who shot JFK, and why?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests