JFK: Reconsidering the Moorman photograph

by Ralph Cinque (with Jim Fetzer)

Among the most important photographs taken during the assassination of JFK in Dealey Plaza on 22 November 1963 was taken by Mary Moorman, who used her Polaroid to snap a photo that has been taken to have occurred a fraction of a second after the shot that entered the vicinity of the right temple and blew his brains out to the left/rear. It has been the subject of intense debate in the past, including a lengthy study to which David Mantik, Jack White and I contributed.  Here is one of Jack’s studies:

Decades of research on the JFK home movies, formally initiated during the JFK Lancer conference in Dallas when I organized and moderated the first symposium on Zapruder film alteration, has yield a superabundance of confirmation that that was indeed done, not only including The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003) but culminating in a series of studies by Larry Rivera, the new chairman of the OIC (Oswald Innocence Campaign), based upon interviews with the motorcycle escort officers that were recorded by Fred Newcomb in 1971, which have proven to be extraordinarily revealing:

Part 2 has now been broadcast, which further reinforces the proof that the JFK limousine was brought to a complete halt, during which Officer Bobby Hargis dismounted from his bike, rushed between the two limos and headed for the grassy knoll, while five Secret Service agents dismounted from the Queen Mary, surrounded the Lincoln, took a piece of skull from a young man and tossed it back into the Lincoln before it took off for Parkland Hospital, which it seems to me required as much as 20 or more seconds. Here is Part 2:


The Zapruder film, we now know, was taken to the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, 23 November 1963, as an 8mm, already split film (which had been developed in Dallas, TX), where the substitute, as a 16mm, not yet split film (which had been developed in Rochester, NY), was brought there on Sunday, 24 November 1963 and the film’s substitution was effected. And now, thanks especially to new research by Larry Rivera, we have good reasons to question the authenticity of the Mooman, which further substantiates the use of photo fakery to conceal the true causes of the death of JFK.

Reconsidering the Moorman photograph

by Ralph Cinque

Joseph Backes implied something that makes sense, although I’m not sure he realizes the implications of it. Below is a paraphrase of what he said: 

“Mary Moorman did not take her photo from the same location as the Babushka Lady.  They were standing at different places and the angle of view they had was different.”

Yes, indeed! That’s exactly what I’m saying!

So, here we have Mary Moorman, abbreviated MM, and Babushka Lady, abbreviated BL, and the white lines show their very different angles of view. I have also added a line for Muchmore’s angle, but realize that I could only draw it to the edge of the picture. It keeps going back, way back, because Muchmore was far away.

OBVIOUSLY, at that moment, Mary Moorman could not have taken a photo that was angularly the same as Babushka Lady. But likewise, she couldn’t take one that was angularly the same as Marie Muchmore either. Yet, they are telling us that she did. 

Where was Marie Muchmore? She started on Houston Street, a little north of the intersection of Main on the west side of the street. But then she relocated. 

I don’t know that we have a picture of her, but here is an animation someone made which shows approximately where she was when she filmed the assassination.

So, that’s where Muchmore was at the relevant time. She had moved from Houston Street past the reflection pool up to the wall which separated the pool area from the grassy area. Her first name was Marie. 

So, Marie Muchmore’s angle was much closer to Babushka Lady’s than Mary Moorman’s. Mary Moorman was facing Elm Street directly and shooting straight at the Kennedys.

Marie Muchmore was filming at a diagonal similar to Babushka Lady except farther back. 

Look at this again, and remember that the line for Muchmore keeps going back at that angle.

So, it makes sense that Babushka Lady and Marie Muchmore would capture the Kennedys very similarly if they shot at the same time, which they apparently did. So, it makes sense, from our knowledge of these ladies’ positions, for the following to be true:

However, it does NOT make sense for this below to be true because of the angular differences of which we are aware:

So, why should we believe that it’s true just because they say it is? They also tell us that Oswald was up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy. They also tell us that Lovelady was the Doorway Man when we can plainly see that that man looks like Oswald and is wearing Oswald’s clothes. I really think it is time to reassess the origin of the Moorman photo.

Please follow and like us:

16 thoughts on “JFK: Reconsidering the Moorman photograph”

  1. Jim,

    In your book "Murder in Dealey Plaza," two of the color inserts establish the exact position in which Mary Moorman was standing when she snapped her Polaroid photo. As described by Jack White in the text of color inserts #s 7 and 8, the line of sight is established mathematically as a cross. The viewpoint of the photographer is lined up precisely in accordance with the laws of mathematics with a photo overlay of the Polaroid.

    I read the article published above by Ralph Cinque and that of Lance on his website. Without a doubt, Lance's article is more persuasive, and it draws upon the findings published in your 2000 book, "Murder in Dealey Plaza." Lance even offers a 3-D moving model of Jack White’s “cross” image to demonstrate where the Moorman photo had to have been taken.

    Simply because I disagreed with Ralph, he has retaliated against me with a personal threat that I take very seriously. From his message to me (copied below), one may discern the pattern of Ralph's conduct as a cyber bully. He is not a capable researcher or critical thinker. And whenever one challenges him, he retaliates with name-calling and threats. You may judge for yourself in the comments below. But by publishing his substandard work on your blog site, you are only serving to enable his out-of-control behavior on the internet:

    Message of Ralph Cinque (August 10, 2015)

    "Professor Norwood, I know you are a professor of Humanities and not Physics. But, I would expect any kind of professor to have enough intelligence to grasp the fundamental principles of optics. It is optically impossible for a photographer who is standing to the left of a passing motorcyclist whose hands are evenly placed on the symmetrical handlebar grips of the motorcycle to capture only his right arm and not his left when his arms are lined up. You are a professor, James, and you should know better. And now you are giving me no choice but to take action because this is behavior, on your part, that is unbecoming of a professor."

  2. In fact the physicist concerned is so anxious not to be publicly associated with this work that he is currently attempting to erase all mention of his name in connection with it. He faces an uphill task since Ralph Cinque has already spread his name all over social media.
    What remains troubling here is why Jim Fetzer, who knows very well from his previous work on the subject that Cinque cannot possibly be correct, would give space to such an obvious piece of disinformation.

  3. Lance makes a good point, Jim. The purely speculative thinking of Ralph Cinque undermines the good work that you and Jack White conducted in Dealey Plaza. There is much debate about whether Moorman stood on the lawn or the pavement while taking her photo. I find your work persuasive that she was standing on the pavement. Incredibly, you now seem to be agreeing with the unsubstantiated opinion of Ralph that Moorman did not even take the photo and that the photo was snapped instead 20 feet away from where you conducted your experiment in Dealey Plaza!

    Another important point is that Ralph is apparently relying on the word of a physicist he has consulted. Yet he fails to mention the name of the physicist. The way things work in scholarly research is that the sources need to be documented, including the names of experts consulted. If the physicist takes his work seriously, he should come out with a detailed overview of his findings. As it stands, we are only relying on the "word" of Ralph Cinque about the conclusions of his consultant. That is not careful research, and it is certainly not science.

  4. Yes, I did notice that. "Muchmore" and "Moorman" providing what little existing photo "evidence" of the crime of the century? Are they codewords? Similar names to add "much more" confusion? Both? Amazing coincidence of similar names related to a hugely important historic event?

  5. Anyone notice CIA using bogus names for their characters?

    Muchmore = Much more.

    Moorman = More man.

    Zapruder = Zap ruder.

    And for the SANDY HOOK hoax…..

    Scott Getzinger = Get zinger. He was propmaster for Batman "Dark Knight Rises" where we find the bad guys' map showing "Sandy Hook, strike zone #1."

    Emilie Parker = EM I-LIE. Fictional Newtown shooting victim.

    (ISIS victim) John Cantlie = Can't lie.

    Once you notice this stuff, it appears in all sorts of Hoax Event character names.

  6. There is a major flaw in the very first comparison. It states, "At the moment that Mary snaps her picture, Muchmore shows…."

    That is NOT the moment when the photo known as the Mary Moorman photo was shot. The Moorman photo shows the man lowest on the stairs in a mostly upright posture while that Muchmore frame show him bending his knees, reacting to what's happening on the street. That frame comes after the Moorman photo was snapped. Motorcycle cop A would have been more centered on her photo and obstructing more of JFK & Jackie than coming into the frame on the right.

    The other two Muchmore frames on the page are closer to when the Moorman photo was snapped.

    Has anyone ever done a fingerprint analysis of the print on the Moorman photo? Was that a dumb error on her part of an historic photo or a deliberate obfuscation of an historic photo on someone else's part?

  7. Sir,

    My credentials are nothing like yours so maybe you've already covered all of the basics. But I must at least mention it. I've searched for quite a few people utilizing people searches over the years. Even found enough folks to do a twenty year basic training reunion so I've search almost all of those kinds of sites enough to know the better ones. I'm watching your video about Charleston right now. If Dylann Roof is 21, he should have a 'human' history on people searches – phone numbers, residential history, basic stuff. Everyone has this. It can't really be avoided except for maybe a name change but after a while, algorithms cover that too and relatives sort of connect the algorithmic dots and bring the person back into the light again. I did a nation search. Dylann Roof does not exist according to the same human footprint every other American has. Now I'm no expert. Maybe someone else can provide a better explanation. But it seems to me, if the cloak and dagger types want to continue creating characters, they must realize that they'll have to stick with 18 year olds that have almost zero legally reportable information for record purposes.

  8. One gets an eerie feeling watching this if one were an adult back then taking in the News from the NYT. Long ago I dropped the idea of Oswald as assassin. But this series is making it abundantly clear just what a shoddy, fake job of investigation was done. People more closely involved must have known the whole thing was a conspiracy. Perhaps they also felt the pointlessness of protesting knowing it would lead nowhere. Isn't that generally what happens? Banks commit fraud and nothing happens. Bodies of important persons turn up in parks and nothing happens. Presidents violate the Constitution and nothing happens. How close it all resembles a magic show. A fairly compelling TV series. I guess most people are willing for the show to go on as long as it is exciting and holds their attention.
    The Real Deal has great historical value and is one of the few on going activities on the net that one must take in if one wants to know what's what!

  9. Maybe someday in the distant future someone will wonder how a twice court martialed, underemployed, enemy interested and trained marksman with $12.95 burning a hole in his pocket was able to buy an Italian war surplus rifle by mail order … Maybe the mailman was in on it too….

    Combine with the assumption he was being protected by simpletons (publish the parade route in the local newspapers, allow open top access in a city where "Wanted for Treason" literature in bring openly distributed, knowledge that an assassination attempt was made on a Army General in the region months prior..you make the call..)

    What could possibly go wrong ..?

  10. Ralph Cinque's photo displays are not persuasive, and no less than three internet blogs have refuted his rambling discussion of Moorman's position vis-à-vis Muchmore's filming location in Dealey Plaza.

    As a discussion topic, this is a non-starter.

    The more important question to raise about the famous Moorman photo is its provenance. The photo was confiscated by the authorities from Moorman shortly after she self-processed the Polaroid at 12:30pm. But why didn't this image appear instantly in the television coverage on Friday afternoon and in newspapers published later in the day? Who controlled that photo over the weekend before it was finally released to the public? Why don't we see Gordon Arnold in the photo?

    Jean Hill vouched for her friend taking this photo. The provenance of the Moorman photo is a more important issue to raise than the mindless chatter of Jim Fetzer and Ralph Cinque posted above.

  11. Ralph Cinque has been shown that his "Muchmore angle" is wrong. He has removed his erroneous info in subsequent blog posts. Cinque has been shown to be wrong on numerous occasions when it comes to photo analysis.

    You should strive to do better Jim.

Leave a Reply