Discussion:
Congratulations Amy! You've just insinuated Mary Moorman is a liar!
Add Reply
bpete1969
2017-06-12 20:46:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Congrats Amy! For being new to this group, you've accomplished what took
Raff* a year or two.

"Dear Ralph,

I hope that you don't mind my writing to you (I cannot recall if you
offered).

I haven't had time to review all of your claims and the opposing arguments
against them, but I wanted to let you know my opinion on a couple of
points:

The Moorman Photo: As of now it appears to me that you are correct! I
looked at the Muchmore film (A film I'm not convinced that she actually
photographed. I even made a video about this; the only video I've made
thus far).

In the film we can see Moorman and the Babushka Lady from behind and that
both of them are either taking a picture or are about to take a picture.
The pov that the BL was in shows that from her angle, it was possible to
catch the positions of the tree, the men and their stance, Jackie leaning
toward JFK in concern, JFK's head slightly cocked to his left, and the
motorcycle policemen's helmets. As the car continues, the position of all
of the above changes when the possibility of Moorman snapping the photo
arises. By the time the car passes Moorman enough for her to be in the
proper alignment, SS man Hill would have been attempting to jump onto the
bumper. This isn't seen in the photo. Also, we can see that the red
shirt man on the stairs has his arms crossed over his chest in the
picture. When the car gets just far enough past Moorman for her to take
the picture, red shirt man clearly has his arms at his side.

I showed the picture and film to my husband who agreed with me. He hasn't
followed the case except to tolerate my obsessiveness he grasped the
situation and argument easily enough. He wouldn't agree just to shut me
up or humor me either."

Apparently, you have little knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the
taking of the Moorman photo.

You've made Raff* proud!
Amy Joyce
2017-06-13 13:56:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Congrats Amy! For being new to this group, you've accomplished what took
Raff* a year or two.
"Dear Ralph,
I hope that you don't mind my writing to you (I cannot recall if you
offered).
I haven't had time to review all of your claims and the opposing arguments
against them, but I wanted to let you know my opinion on a couple of
The Moorman Photo: As of now it appears to me that you are correct! I
looked at the Muchmore film (A film I'm not convinced that she actually
photographed. I even made a video about this; the only video I've made
thus far).
In the film we can see Moorman and the Babushka Lady from behind and that
both of them are either taking a picture or are about to take a picture.
The pov that the BL was in shows that from her angle, it was possible to
catch the positions of the tree, the men and their stance, Jackie leaning
toward JFK in concern, JFK's head slightly cocked to his left, and the
motorcycle policemen's helmets. As the car continues, the position of all
of the above changes when the possibility of Moorman snapping the photo
arises. By the time the car passes Moorman enough for her to be in the
proper alignment, SS man Hill would have been attempting to jump onto the
bumper. This isn't seen in the photo. Also, we can see that the red
shirt man on the stairs has his arms crossed over his chest in the
picture. When the car gets just far enough past Moorman for her to take
the picture, red shirt man clearly has his arms at his side.
I showed the picture and film to my husband who agreed with me. He hasn't
followed the case except to tolerate my obsessiveness he grasped the
situation and argument easily enough. He wouldn't agree just to shut me
up or humor me either."
Apparently, you have little knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the
taking of the Moorman photo.
You've made Raff* proud!
"You've made Raff* proud!"

I hope so. He raised some interesting points.

I don't agree with everything he has claimed or agree with all of his
reasoning regarding the claims of his THAT I DO AGREE WITH, but like Chris
he's been kind and patient with me and some of my inquires. They both have
also respected that I have some differing opinions. What they have NOT
done is attack me for having an opinion that's different, nor have they
attempted to belittle me because of it. Others here have resulted to name
calling, made assumptions about me and tried to denigrate me for them
whether they were true or not.

"Apparently, you have little knowledge of the circumstances surrounding
the taking of the Moorman photo." That ridiculous fallacy argument does
nothing but show that you'd rather try to insult someone rather than have
a conversation. Enjoy the circle jerk.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-14 00:19:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by bpete1969
Congrats Amy! For being new to this group, you've accomplished what took
Raff* a year or two.
"Dear Ralph,
I hope that you don't mind my writing to you (I cannot recall if you
offered).
I haven't had time to review all of your claims and the opposing arguments
against them, but I wanted to let you know my opinion on a couple of
The Moorman Photo: As of now it appears to me that you are correct! I
looked at the Muchmore film (A film I'm not convinced that she actually
photographed. I even made a video about this; the only video I've made
thus far).
In the film we can see Moorman and the Babushka Lady from behind and that
both of them are either taking a picture or are about to take a picture.
The pov that the BL was in shows that from her angle, it was possible to
catch the positions of the tree, the men and their stance, Jackie leaning
toward JFK in concern, JFK's head slightly cocked to his left, and the
motorcycle policemen's helmets. As the car continues, the position of all
of the above changes when the possibility of Moorman snapping the photo
arises. By the time the car passes Moorman enough for her to be in the
proper alignment, SS man Hill would have been attempting to jump onto the
bumper. This isn't seen in the photo. Also, we can see that the red
shirt man on the stairs has his arms crossed over his chest in the
picture. When the car gets just far enough past Moorman for her to take
the picture, red shirt man clearly has his arms at his side.
I showed the picture and film to my husband who agreed with me. He hasn't
followed the case except to tolerate my obsessiveness he grasped the
situation and argument easily enough. He wouldn't agree just to shut me
up or humor me either."
Apparently, you have little knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the
taking of the Moorman photo.
You've made Raff* proud!
"You've made Raff* proud!"
I hope so. He raised some interesting points.
I don't agree with everything he has claimed or agree with all of his
reasoning regarding the claims of his THAT I DO AGREE WITH, but like Chris
he's been kind and patient with me and some of my inquires. They both have
also respected that I have some differing opinions. What they have NOT
done is attack me for having an opinion that's different, nor have they
attempted to belittle me because of it. Others here have resulted to name
calling, made assumptions about me and tried to denigrate me for them
whether they were true or not.
"Apparently, you have little knowledge of the circumstances surrounding
the taking of the Moorman photo." That ridiculous fallacy argument does
nothing but show that you'd rather try to insult someone rather than have
a conversation. Enjoy the circle jerk.
What EXACTLY do you want to know? There are various versions, crops,
copies, renditions of the Moorman photo. The original is genuine and the
negative still exists. It was a Polaroid. It was impossible to fake a
POlaroid back in 2963. Maybe you can't see something because you found a
bad copy. Don't rely on Google. Also use Bing which has more images.

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

Even if Clint Hill got there by then, which I doubt, you couldn't see him
because of the cop in the foreground. You can see how close Hill is in the
other films.


You also need to read the Dale Myers article in which he recreated the
Moorman photo to confirm that Badge Man is just an optical illusion.
bpete1969
2017-06-14 02:48:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by bpete1969
Congrats Amy! For being new to this group, you've accomplished what took
Raff* a year or two.
"Dear Ralph,
I hope that you don't mind my writing to you (I cannot recall if you
offered).
I haven't had time to review all of your claims and the opposing arguments
against them, but I wanted to let you know my opinion on a couple of
The Moorman Photo: As of now it appears to me that you are correct! I
looked at the Muchmore film (A film I'm not convinced that she actually
photographed. I even made a video about this; the only video I've made
thus far).
In the film we can see Moorman and the Babushka Lady from behind and that
both of them are either taking a picture or are about to take a picture.
The pov that the BL was in shows that from her angle, it was possible to
catch the positions of the tree, the men and their stance, Jackie leaning
toward JFK in concern, JFK's head slightly cocked to his left, and the
motorcycle policemen's helmets. As the car continues, the position of all
of the above changes when the possibility of Moorman snapping the photo
arises. By the time the car passes Moorman enough for her to be in the
proper alignment, SS man Hill would have been attempting to jump onto the
bumper. This isn't seen in the photo. Also, we can see that the red
shirt man on the stairs has his arms crossed over his chest in the
picture. When the car gets just far enough past Moorman for her to take
the picture, red shirt man clearly has his arms at his side.
I showed the picture and film to my husband who agreed with me. He hasn't
followed the case except to tolerate my obsessiveness he grasped the
situation and argument easily enough. He wouldn't agree just to shut me
up or humor me either."
Apparently, you have little knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the
taking of the Moorman photo.
You've made Raff* proud!
"You've made Raff* proud!"
I hope so. He raised some interesting points.
I don't agree with everything he has claimed or agree with all of his
reasoning regarding the claims of his THAT I DO AGREE WITH, but like Chris
he's been kind and patient with me and some of my inquires. They both have
also respected that I have some differing opinions. What they have NOT
done is attack me for having an opinion that's different, nor have they
attempted to belittle me because of it. Others here have resulted to name
calling, made assumptions about me and tried to denigrate me for them
whether they were true or not.
"Apparently, you have little knowledge of the circumstances surrounding
the taking of the Moorman photo." That ridiculous fallacy argument does
nothing but show that you'd rather try to insult someone rather than have
a conversation. Enjoy the circle jerk.
Not ridiculous at all. If you agree with Raff*, that Moorman could not
have taken her photo, then you have no concept of the relationship to
where she was standing, where her camera was pointed and the resulting
image captured. Raff* claims that he had an expert show that she couldn't
have taken the photo and that was shot down completely. By me as well as
others.

Raff* also claimed that certain things in the image couldn't have been
captured and his own "recreation" proved that I as well as others were
correct in their claims.

As for the circle jerk, you appear to be well accustomed to the position
of pivot man.

Like I said, you made Raff* proud. That speaks volumes in itself.
Bud
2017-06-13 13:56:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Congrats Amy! For being new to this group, you've accomplished what took
Raff* a year or two.
"Dear Ralph,
I hope that you don't mind my writing to you (I cannot recall if you
offered).
I haven't had time to review all of your claims and the opposing arguments
against them, but I wanted to let you know my opinion on a couple of
The Moorman Photo: As of now it appears to me that you are correct! I
looked at the Muchmore film (A film I'm not convinced that she actually
photographed. I even made a video about this; the only video I've made
thus far).
In the film we can see Moorman and the Babushka Lady from behind and that
both of them are either taking a picture or are about to take a picture.
The pov that the BL was in shows that from her angle, it was possible to
catch the positions of the tree, the men and their stance, Jackie leaning
toward JFK in concern, JFK's head slightly cocked to his left, and the
motorcycle policemen's helmets. As the car continues, the position of all
of the above changes when the possibility of Moorman snapping the photo
arises. By the time the car passes Moorman enough for her to be in the
proper alignment, SS man Hill would have been attempting to jump onto the
bumper. This isn't seen in the photo. Also, we can see that the red
shirt man on the stairs has his arms crossed over his chest in the
picture. When the car gets just far enough past Moorman for her to take
the picture, red shirt man clearly has his arms at his side.
I showed the picture and film to my husband who agreed with me. He hasn't
followed the case except to tolerate my obsessiveness he grasped the
situation and argument easily enough. He wouldn't agree just to shut me
up or humor me either."
Apparently, you have little knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the
taking of the Moorman photo.
You've made Raff* proud!
Cinque has publicly tried to woo her. Let us hope he is successful.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-13 14:00:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Mary Moorman has always maintained that she took her photo when the
Kennedys were directly across from her, and she has even demonstrated it
that way.

But, the Moorman photo was taken at an angle from behind. That's why we're
seeing the back of their heads. It's why they aren't centered in the
picture. And most important, it explains the angle between the line of the
limo and the bottom of the photo, as explained by the physics professor.

Notice that bpete did not say anything of substance. He just made fun of
Amy. But, these are very real issue which cannot be dismissed or
trivialized.

Even when a professional photo team went to Dealey Plaza to duplicate the
Moorman photo, their photographer lined up his camera just as the
professor described: at a diagonal angle from behind. Mary did not take
her picture that way, and she never said she took her picture that way.
And it would have been crazy for her to do so because she waited hours to
photograph them. So, especially considering how slowly it was going, why
would she let them pass her before taking their picture? She wouldn't. She
couldn't. She didn't.
Steve Barber
2017-06-14 00:10:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Mary Moorman has always maintained that she took her photo when the
Kennedys were directly across from her, and she has even demonstrated it
that way.
But, the Moorman photo was taken at an angle from behind. That's why we're
seeing the back of their heads. It's why they aren't centered in the
picture. And most important, it explains the angle between the line of the
limo and the bottom of the photo, as explained by the physics professor.
Notice that bpete did not say anything of substance. He just made fun of
Amy. But, these are very real issue which cannot be dismissed or
trivialized.
Even when a professional photo team went to Dealey Plaza to duplicate the
Moorman photo, their photographer lined up his camera just as the
professor described: at a diagonal angle from behind. Mary did not take
her picture that way, and she never said she took her picture that way.
And it would have been crazy for her to do so because she waited hours to
photograph them. So, especially considering how slowly it was going, why
would she let them pass her before taking their picture? She wouldn't. She
couldn't. She didn't.
I don't know why you are allowed into this newsgroup. Calling a woman of
Mary Ann Moorman Krahmer's high integrity a liar is beyond the pale!
You have stooped to the lowest of the low, Cinque.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-14 14:36:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
What? That is an outrage, Barber. I have NEVER called Mary Moorman a liar.
How dare you? I have said consistently that she was bamboozled. She was
tricked. They conned her. And I know when too. It was during the
"borrowing" of her photo in which the white thumbprint was added. That's
when they swapped out her photo for the one that became famous, which was
really taken by the Babushka Lady. But, because the perspective was
different, they had to add the thumbprint in order to make it look
consistent with Mary's original.

Now, the alternative to that is that that thumbprint occurred by accident.
You buy that, do you?

How ridiculous and buffoonish you are, Barber. I have NEVER challenged
Mary Moorman's integrity or her legal ownership of the photo known as the
Moorman photo.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-15 16:48:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
What? That is an outrage, Barber. I have NEVER called Mary Moorman a liar.
Steve always uses false indignation to try to play the hero.
Post by Ralph Cinque
How dare you? I have said consistently that she was bamboozled. She was
tricked. They conned her. And I know when too. It was during the
"borrowing" of her photo in which the white thumbprint was added. That's
when they swapped out her photo for the one that became famous, which was
really taken by the Babushka Lady. But, because the perspective was
different, they had to add the thumbprint in order to make it look
consistent with Mary's original.
Who added the fingerprint? End the cover-up.
Post by Ralph Cinque
Now, the alternative to that is that that thumbprint occurred by accident.
You buy that, do you?
How ridiculous and buffoonish you are, Barber. I have NEVER challenged
Mary Moorman's integrity or her legal ownership of the photo known as the
Moorman photo.
Ace Kefford
2017-06-23 00:25:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ralph Cinque
What? That is an outrage, Barber. I have NEVER called Mary Moorman a liar.
Steve always uses false indignation to try to play the hero.
Post by Ralph Cinque
How dare you? I have said consistently that she was bamboozled. She was
tricked. They conned her. And I know when too. It was during the
"borrowing" of her photo in which the white thumbprint was added. That's
when they swapped out her photo for the one that became famous, which was
really taken by the Babushka Lady. But, because the perspective was
different, they had to add the thumbprint in order to make it look
consistent with Mary's original.
Who added the fingerprint? End the cover-up.
Post by Ralph Cinque
Now, the alternative to that is that that thumbprint occurred by accident.
You buy that, do you?
How ridiculous and buffoonish you are, Barber. I have NEVER challenged
Mary Moorman's integrity or her legal ownership of the photo known as the
Moorman photo.
Who added the thumb print? Must have been Comey!
s***@peoplepc.com
2017-06-15 18:58:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
What? That is an outrage, Barber. I have NEVER called Mary Moorman a liar.
How dare you? I have said consistently that she was bamboozled. She was
tricked. They conned her. And I know when too. It was during the
"borrowing" of her photo in which the white thumbprint was added. That's
when they swapped out her photo for the one that became famous, which was
really taken by the Babushka Lady. But, because the perspective was
different, they had to add the thumbprint in order to make it look
consistent with Mary's original.
Now, the alternative to that is that that thumbprint occurred by accident.
You buy that, do you?
How ridiculous and buffoonish you are, Barber. I have NEVER challenged
Mary Moorman's integrity or her legal ownership of the photo known as the
Moorman photo.
Poppycock, Cinque! She was not "bamboozled" and you **are** calling her
liar in everything you say about her. You have absolutely no conscience
whatsoever and I repeat what I said when I said I don't don't know why you
are allowed in this newsgroup.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-16 23:24:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I have never called Mary Moorman a liar, but there are a few things I am
inclined to call you.

A liar is one who deliberately tells an untruth. She's never told one. She
honestly believes she took that photo. She's mistaken, but she's not
lying.

So, I am NOT calling her a liar.

I know you're not bright, Steve, but even so: you should be able to grasp
what I'm saying. The one who did this was the FBI. But, they didn't cut
Mary in on it. She wasn't their accomplice. They lied to her, but she
didn't lie to anybody.
Steve Barber
2017-06-21 02:25:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
I have never called Mary Moorman a liar, but there are a few things I am
inclined to call you.
A liar is one who deliberately tells an untruth. She's never told one. She
honestly believes she took that photo. She's mistaken, but she's not
lying.
So, I am NOT calling her a liar.
I know you're not bright, Steve, but even so: you should be able to grasp
what I'm saying. The one who did this was the FBI. But, they didn't cut
Mary in on it. She wasn't their accomplice. They lied to her, but she
didn't lie to anybody.
Excuse me? Who are you to say that I am "not bright"? You are the
person who comes in here spouting off at the mouth making things up that
are so far from factual it's unreal, Cinque.If anyone is "not bright",
it's you Cinque. Put that in your beverage and drink it.

You are saying that Mary Ann Moorman Krahmer didn't take the picture she
took and said she took. Therefore, you are calling her a liar. Try all you
want to candy-coat and say that she is "mistaken", but facts are facts,
you are calling her a liar. She pulled her own picture out of her camera
and looked at it. She is photographed in Dealey Plaza looking at it, so
don't you dare say that she didn't take her picture, Cinque. And let me
tell you something else. I am inclined to call you a few things too but I
won't stoop to your level.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-21 22:00:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I state that Mary Moorman was bamboozled. She was tricked by the FBI. They
replaced her photo with another one, and she accepted it because she
respects authority. If they told her it was her picture, she believed it
because they told her so.

Mary Moorman was lied TO. She didn't lie. She was the recipient of the
lie. If there are liars, there are also lie-ees, and she was the lie-ee in
this case.

If you can't grasp that, Barber, then I can't help you. That is as
dumbed-down as I can make it.

And just yesterday, Mary Moorman gave my music a Like on Facebook.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/oh-wow-mary-moorman-gave-me-like-for.html
bpete1969
2017-06-22 14:04:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
I state that Mary Moorman was bamboozled. She was tricked by the FBI. They
replaced her photo with another one, and she accepted it because she
respects authority. If they told her it was her picture, she believed it
because they told her so.
Mary Moorman was lied TO. She didn't lie. She was the recipient of the
lie. If there are liars, there are also lie-ees, and she was the lie-ee in
this case.
If you can't grasp that, Barber, then I can't help you. That is as
dumbed-down as I can make it.
And just yesterday, Mary Moorman gave my music a Like on Facebook.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/oh-wow-mary-moorman-gave-me-like-for.html
How do you know she didn't give you a "like" because you said you were
stopping posting music videos for a while?

You don't.

So to clear it up why don't you send her a link to this thread and let her
read about your claims that she was bamboozled?

It would clear up so much.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-23 00:28:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by Ralph Cinque
I state that Mary Moorman was bamboozled. She was tricked by the FBI. They
replaced her photo with another one, and she accepted it because she
respects authority. If they told her it was her picture, she believed it
because they told her so.
Mary Moorman was lied TO. She didn't lie. She was the recipient of the
lie. If there are liars, there are also lie-ees, and she was the lie-ee in
this case.
If you can't grasp that, Barber, then I can't help you. That is as
dumbed-down as I can make it.
And just yesterday, Mary Moorman gave my music a Like on Facebook.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/oh-wow-mary-moorman-gave-me-like-for.html
How do you know she didn't give you a "like" because you said you were
stopping posting music videos for a while?
You don't.
So to clear it up why don't you send her a link to this thread and let her
read about your claims that she was bamboozled?
It would clear up so much.
WTF are you babbling about? You are asking a person here to do actual
research. How cruel can you get? At long last, sir, have you no sense of
sympathy?
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-23 00:31:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
That is ridiculous. What, do you think Mary Moorman is like you? She's a
nice person. She wouldn't do that.
Steve Barber
2017-06-22 19:44:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
I state that Mary Moorman was bamboozled. She was tricked by the FBI. They
replaced her photo with another one, and she accepted it because she
respects authority. If they told her it was her picture, she believed it
because they told her so.
Mary Moorman was lied TO. She didn't lie. She was the recipient of the
lie. If there are liars, there are also lie-ees, and she was the lie-ee in
this case.
If you can't grasp that, Barber, then I can't help you. That is as
dumbed-down as I can make it.
And just yesterday, Mary Moorman gave my music a Like on Facebook.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/oh-wow-mary-moorman-gave-me-like-for.html
Give it up, Ralph. Mary ann Moorman Krahmer is a born again Christian
woman, who has strong, strong faith in Jesus Christ, the One you think
doesn't exist, Mr. atheist. You give the woman absolutely no credit.
You think her stupid--and don't bother denying it because you just said
that she was bamboozled by the FBI! She was no such thing. You, on the
other hand hand HAVE been bamboozled by the conspiracy movement, and you
don't care who you slander. I feel really sorry for people like you. So
easily bamboozled with nothing else to do except post crap like this about
a woman who took a photograph. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic!
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-23 00:37:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
You give it up, Barber, because I'm not giving up anything. So Mary
Moorman has a belief in Jesus Christ, and I don't. So what? It has nothing
to do with this. This is a very earthly matter.

And I see that you finally have gotten it that I do not call her a liar.
So, you've changed your tune, and now you accuse me of calling her stupid.
Except: I have never called her that. I said she was bamboozled, and what
I attribute it to is not stupidity but rather, her respect for authority.
And that's another thing she has that I don't have: respect for authority.

She didn't take the photo, Barber. The Moorman photo was taken at a
diagonal angle from behind, and not only has she never claimed to have
taken her picture that way, but we can see in all of the films that she
never turned that way. Mary has said repeatedly that she started looking
through her viewfinder as soon as the limo rounded the corner at the top
of the hill. So, she was poised and ready to take the picture- snap the
shutter- long before the limo got to her. So, why would she let it pass
her and then shoot them from behind capturing the backs of their heads.
She wouldn't. She couldn't. She didn't. She wanted to capture their faces,
as any other normal person would. And the idea that she didn't have time
is ridiculous to the point of absurdity.

Mary Moorman did not take that picture, Barber. She's a lovely woman, a
kind soul, a good person, but she did not take it. She was bamboozled, but
I don't fault her. What could she do? Take on the FBI? Not everybody is
cut out for that. I am, but not everybody.
bpete1969
2017-06-14 03:01:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Mary Moorman has always maintained that she took her photo when the
Kennedys were directly across from her, and she has even demonstrated it
that way.
But, the Moorman photo was taken at an angle from behind. That's why we're
seeing the back of their heads. It's why they aren't centered in the
picture. And most important, it explains the angle between the line of the
limo and the bottom of the photo, as explained by the physics professor.
Notice that bpete did not say anything of substance. He just made fun of
Amy. But, these are very real issue which cannot be dismissed or
trivialized.
Even when a professional photo team went to Dealey Plaza to duplicate the
Moorman photo, their photographer lined up his camera just as the
professor described: at a diagonal angle from behind. Mary did not take
her picture that way, and she never said she took her picture that way.
And it would have been crazy for her to do so because she waited hours to
photograph them. So, especially considering how slowly it was going, why
would she let them pass her before taking their picture? She wouldn't. She
couldn't. She didn't.
Yes she did demonstrate it that way. And the photo you ripped off of my
blog shows that she was pointing the camera directly across the street.
Due to the speed of the car, the limo was past the center of her lens when
she clicked the shutter button. This has all been explained before. And
demonstrated to you countless times.

As shown, your "expert" never took into consideration that the car was
traveling down a street with a 3 degree slope. His little diagram showed
Mary Moorman standing at the same elevation as the bottom of the limo. He
was severely debunked.

You also claimed that it was impossible for a portion of the motorcycle
rider's right arm to be captured in the photo while the left arm wasn't. I
proved you wrong on that one as well.

To refresh your memory...

http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/08/raff-gets-all-scientific.html

http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/09/ralph-cinque-confirms-moorman-polaroid.html

http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/08/what-idiot.html?m=0

http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/08/lets-take-raff-for-ride.html

http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/09/time-to-remind-raff-why-hes-irrelevant.html

http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/09/i-told-you-he-doesnt-know-damn-thing.html?m=0

http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/09/still-waiting-raff.html?m=0

http://www.bpete1969.com/2016/08/they-dont-make-them-any-more-stupidwe.html

That's just a few of the times I debunked your crap.

I suggest you go back through them and see if you can learn anything.
Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-06-14 19:10:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by Ralph Cinque
Mary Moorman has always maintained that she took her photo when the
Kennedys were directly across from her, and she has even demonstrated it
that way.
But, the Moorman photo was taken at an angle from behind. That's why we're
seeing the back of their heads. It's why they aren't centered in the
picture. And most important, it explains the angle between the line of the
limo and the bottom of the photo, as explained by the physics professor.
Notice that bpete did not say anything of substance. He just made fun of
Amy. But, these are very real issue which cannot be dismissed or
trivialized.
Even when a professional photo team went to Dealey Plaza to duplicate the
Moorman photo, their photographer lined up his camera just as the
professor described: at a diagonal angle from behind. Mary did not take
her picture that way, and she never said she took her picture that way.
And it would have been crazy for her to do so because she waited hours to
photograph them. So, especially considering how slowly it was going, why
would she let them pass her before taking their picture? She wouldn't. She
couldn't. She didn't.
Yes she did demonstrate it that way. And the photo you ripped off of my
blog shows that she was pointing the camera directly across the street.
Due to the speed of the car, the limo was past the center of her lens when
she clicked the shutter button. This has all been explained before. And
demonstrated to you countless times.
As shown, your "expert" never took into consideration that the car was
traveling down a street with a 3 degree slope. His little diagram showed
Mary Moorman standing at the same elevation as the bottom of the limo. He
was severely debunked.
You also claimed that it was impossible for a portion of the motorcycle
rider's right arm to be captured in the photo while the left arm wasn't. I
proved you wrong on that one as well.
To refresh your memory...
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/08/raff-gets-all-scientific.html
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/09/ralph-cinque-confirms-moorman-polaroid.html
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/08/what-idiot.html?m=0
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/08/lets-take-raff-for-ride.html
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/09/time-to-remind-raff-why-hes-irrelevant.html
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/09/i-told-you-he-doesnt-know-damn-thing.html?m=0
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/09/still-waiting-raff.html?m=0
http://www.bpete1969.com/2016/08/they-dont-make-them-any-more-stupidwe.html
That's just a few of the times I debunked your crap.
I suggest you go back through them and see if you can learn anything.
Thanks, B. You've covered it all……… twice, nay,
thrice. For several years now.

I'm thinking……… this 'Amy'
………. she has certain nuances in her writing as the
little fella does. Could she/he be????? Nahhhhhhh
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-14 21:59:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Note: this is my response to bpete WITHOUT the images. To read it with the
images, go here:

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/bpunk1969-due-to-speed-of-car-limo-was.html

That is nonsense. The limo was either stopped or traveling so slowly that
that Jean Hill could speak a long sentence to JFK and expect him to hear
her and respond.

"Mr. President, look this way. We want to take your picture."

She said that to JFK as he was passing her, which means either that he was
passing her at a crawl, or he had stopped completely. And either way, it
renders bpete's claim totally false.

The Moorman photo was DEFINITELY taken on a diagonal, and it's not just
the professor and I who say so. A team of photographic analysts went to
Dealey Plaza to duplicate the Moorman photo, and this is angle that they
shot at.

The angle was a bit greater than that, in my opinion, but it gives you the
general idea.

And, Mary had an incentive to take her picture slightly BEFORE the
Kennedys reached her, and that's because that would have caught their
faces. Even a profile shot is not very satisfying. It's better than the
back of the heads, but it's not nearly as good as a shot that captures
their faces directly. And Mary had the time and opportunity to do that.
But, the idea that she would have waited until after is preposterous.

This calls for a swift review:

1. Mary's photo, the one she actually took, must have contained something
that jeopardized the official story of Oswald making all the shots from
the 6th floor window. So, a decision was made to get rid of hers and
replace it with a Polaroid they took of an image captured by Babushka
Lady. However, because the angle was different, the whole perspective was
different, especially of Hargis and Martin, who were captured similar to
how they were captured by Marie Muchmore. So, this, below, is how the
Moorman photo looked before they added the thumbprint.


So, they had to get rid of Martin, who is closest to us, and they did that
with the thumbprint.

He's in there. You can still see his leg coming down. And that's the front
of Martin's motorcycle that we see, the front wheels and headlight and
windshield, etc. However, the toolbox behind Hargis is the back of his
motorcycle. So, we are seeing the front of one motorcycle (Martin's) and
the rear of another (Hargis'), and they were trying to make them look like
one.

The arm and handlebars we see in the lower right are totally fake, and
it's an impossible capture. It's supposed to be a right arm, but notice
first how unphotographic it looks, with a clam-like hand and crude,
stick-like arm. This is lousy art is what it is.

Look at the ridiculous span of that, and that's just to part of his arm.
Imagine if it included his whole body, how ridiculously large the image
would be. That is fake.

Notice on the right below that I did a good job of capturing the field of
the Moorman photo. The backgrounds across the street match pretty darn
well. And the only reason that was possible is because I was turned and
shooting diagonally.

What do you think would have happened if I had faced Elm street squarely?
It would have changed the background immensely, and it never would have
matched. So, the diagonal angle is absolutely essential to duplicate the
Moorman photo. But, shooting it that way, it resulted in the bike rider
entering the camera field as you see above on the right, with the right
arm higher in the image- NOT at the bottom of it- and the left arm also
appearing. It's possible to catch the right arm first if you are facing
Elm Street squarely, but once you turn to your left and start shooting
diagonally, it means that you'll get this result.

So, the capture of BJ Martin's arm in the Moorman photo is definitely
fake, and there are plenty more problems than that, which we'll get into.

But for now, I'll leave you with this: What could possibly make you accept
the FBI story that someone accidentally imposed that thumbprint on the
photo? First, you should try pressing your thumb into some Polaroid photos
because you'll find that it has no effect. If you are willing to accept
their story, then you are just an obedient mole of the Fascist State, and
that's all there is to say. But, if you've got a half a brain AND an
aversion to being lied to, then you know that they put that thumbprint
there on purpose. And once you realize that, you'll soon realize that the
reason I have given you is the reason that they did it: to cover up BJ
Martin who was positioned PHOTOGRAPHICALLY slightly ahead of Hargis and
not behind him.


http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/bpunk1969-due-to-speed-of-car-limo-was.html
bpete1969
2017-06-15 17:37:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Note: this is my response to bpete WITHOUT the images. To read it with the
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/bpunk1969-due-to-speed-of-car-limo-was.html
That is nonsense. The limo was either stopped or traveling so slowly that
that Jean Hill could speak a long sentence to JFK and expect him to hear
her and respond.
"Mr. President, look this way. We want to take your picture."
She said that to JFK as he was passing her, which means either that he was
passing her at a crawl, or he had stopped completely. And either way, it
renders bpete's claim totally false.
The only evidence for how fast the car was moving is the Zapruder film.
Just because Jean Hill said something to the President, it doesn't mean
that she expected the President to hear it. There were two Harley Davidson
motorcycles between Hill and the car. Harley's are loud. But then again
you've shown that you have no knowledge about motorcycles.
Post by Ralph Cinque
The Moorman photo was DEFINITELY taken on a diagonal, and it's not just
the professor and I who say so. A team of photographic analysts went to
Dealey Plaza to duplicate the Moorman photo, and this is angle that they
shot at.
The angle was a bit greater than that, in my opinion, but it gives you the
general idea.
I have provided diagrams that show that Moorman's photo was taken from her
position. You have provided nothing. Your so called optics expert totally
failed at proving your theory. His diagram was completely debunked by me.
He shows Moorman standing at the same elevation as the bottom line of the
limo. He couldn't even figure the downward incline of the roadway which I
proved to you using simple trig functions.
Post by Ralph Cinque
And, Mary had an incentive to take her picture slightly BEFORE the
Kennedys reached her, and that's because that would have caught their
faces. Even a profile shot is not very satisfying. It's better than the
back of the heads, but it's not nearly as good as a shot that captures
their faces directly. And Mary had the time and opportunity to do that.
But, the idea that she would have waited until after is preposterous.
If it is so preposterous, why do you then claim that Babushka Lady took a
photo showing the rear of the car, well past her position?

You claim that Babushka Lady did the very thing that Mary Moorman wouldn't
do.
Actually it calls for you to quit while you're behind but then again, you
never were one to quit shoveling your way out of a hole.
Post by Ralph Cinque
1. Mary's photo, the one she actually took, must have contained something
that jeopardized the official story of Oswald making all the shots from
the 6th floor window. So, a decision was made to get rid of hers and
replace it with a Polaroid they took of an image captured by Babushka
Lady. However, because the angle was different, the whole perspective was
different, especially of Hargis and Martin, who were captured similar to
how they were captured by Marie Muchmore. So, this, below, is how the
Moorman photo looked before they added the thumbprint.
What you just typed is complete hog wash. Copies of the Polaroid were made
prior to the thumbprint and prove you wrong. Completely. Your cut and
paste skills are severely lacking, but that's to be expected. They match
your knowledge of motorcycles, photography and everything else JFK
related.
Post by Ralph Cinque
So, they had to get rid of Martin, who is closest to us, and they did that
with the thumbprint.
He's in there. You can still see his leg coming down. And that's the front
of Martin's motorcycle that we see, the front wheels and headlight and
windshield, etc. However, the toolbox behind Hargis is the back of his
motorcycle. So, we are seeing the front of one motorcycle (Martin's) and
the rear of another (Hargis'), and they were trying to make them look like
one.
The arm and handlebars we see in the lower right are totally fake, and
it's an impossible capture. It's supposed to be a right arm, but notice
first how unphotographic it looks, with a clam-like hand and crude,
stick-like arm. This is lousy art is what it is.
Look at the ridiculous span of that, and that's just to part of his arm.
Imagine if it included his whole body, how ridiculously large the image
would be. That is fake.
You've been totally debunked. The photos you've ripped off my blog and
altered proved that your claim is false. I showed that not only is it
possible to capture the right arm of a motorcycle rider from the left
side, but that the hand position on the grip is consistent with the
Moorman photo.
Post by Ralph Cinque
Notice on the right below that I did a good job of capturing the field of
the Moorman photo. The backgrounds across the street match pretty darn
well. And the only reason that was possible is because I was turned and
shooting diagonally.
I superimposed your photo on the Moorman photo and showed you were off on
location (much like your Altgens reenactment). But you did verify my claim
about being able to capture the right arm of the rider from the left side.
What to go double or nothing?
Post by Ralph Cinque
What do you think would have happened if I had faced Elm street squarely?
It would have changed the background immensely, and it never would have
matched. So, the diagonal angle is absolutely essential to duplicate the
Moorman photo. But, shooting it that way, it resulted in the bike rider
entering the camera field as you see above on the right, with the right
arm higher in the image- NOT at the bottom of it- and the left arm also
appearing. It's possible to catch the right arm first if you are facing
Elm Street squarely, but once you turn to your left and start shooting
diagonally, it means that you'll get this result.
So, the capture of BJ Martin's arm in the Moorman photo is definitely
fake, and there are plenty more problems than that, which we'll get into.
Total crap.
Post by Ralph Cinque
But for now, I'll leave you with this: What could possibly make you accept
the FBI story that someone accidentally imposed that thumbprint on the
photo? First, you should try pressing your thumb into some Polaroid photos
because you'll find that it has no effect. If you are willing to accept
their story, then you are just an obedient mole of the Fascist State, and
that's all there is to say. But, if you've got a half a brain AND an
aversion to being lied to, then you know that they put that thumbprint
there on purpose. And once you realize that, you'll soon realize that the
reason I have given you is the reason that they did it: to cover up BJ
Martin who was positioned PHOTOGRAPHICALLY slightly ahead of Hargis and
not behind him.
The Zapruder film shows that the position of the motorcycles in Moorman
are legit and that you are wrong.

That was a whole lot of lip flappin" for nothing Raff*.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-16 23:30:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
This is my response to bpete. I can't post images here, so you'll have to
go to my blog to see them. In a word: he made NO valid points. The Moorman
photo was definitely taken by the Babushka Lady at a diagonal angle, just
as we see her in the Muchmore film.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/of-course-zapruder-film-was-altered-to.html
bpete1969
2017-06-17 17:46:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
This is my response to bpete. I can't post images here, so you'll have to
go to my blog to see them. In a word: he made NO valid points. The Moorman
photo was definitely taken by the Babushka Lady at a diagonal angle, just
as we see her in the Muchmore film.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/of-course-zapruder-film-was-altered-to.htm
babushka lady could not have taken the Moorman photo from her position.
From Babushka Lady's position, the photo would show the back of the
motorcycle riders.It would have been taken from just right of profile for
the second rider in. That's a fact.

You're making things up that aren't true.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-17 17:48:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
This is my response to bpete. I can't post images here, so you'll have to
go to my blog to see them. In a word: he made NO valid points. The Moorman
photo was definitely taken by the Babushka Lady at a diagonal angle, just
as we see her in the Muchmore film.
You mean McAdams won't let you. But he lets his buddies and does it
himself.
Post by Ralph Cinque
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/of-course-zapruder-film-was-altered-to.html
q***@yahoo.com
2017-06-17 17:51:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by Ralph Cinque
Mary Moorman has always maintained that she took her photo when the
Kennedys were directly across from her, and she has even demonstrated it
that way.
But, the Moorman photo was taken at an angle from behind. That's why we're
seeing the back of their heads. It's why they aren't centered in the
picture. And most important, it explains the angle between the line of the
limo and the bottom of the photo, as explained by the physics professor.
Notice that bpete did not say anything of substance. He just made fun of
Amy. But, these are very real issue which cannot be dismissed or
trivialized.
Even when a professional photo team went to Dealey Plaza to duplicate the
Moorman photo, their photographer lined up his camera just as the
professor described: at a diagonal angle from behind. Mary did not take
her picture that way, and she never said she took her picture that way.
And it would have been crazy for her to do so because she waited hours to
photograph them. So, especially considering how slowly it was going, why
would she let them pass her before taking their picture? She wouldn't. She
couldn't. She didn't.
Yes she did demonstrate it that way. And the photo you ripped off of my
blog shows that she was pointing the camera directly across the street.
Due to the speed of the car, the limo was past the center of her lens when
she clicked the shutter button. This has all been explained before. And
demonstrated to you countless times.
As shown, your "expert" never took into consideration that the car was
traveling down a street with a 3 degree slope. His little diagram showed
Mary Moorman standing at the same elevation as the bottom of the limo. He
was severely debunked.
You also claimed that it was impossible for a portion of the motorcycle
rider's right arm to be captured in the photo while the left arm wasn't. I
proved you wrong on that one as well.
To refresh your memory...
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/08/raff-gets-all-scientific.html
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/09/ralph-cinque-confirms-moorman-polaroid.html
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/08/what-idiot.html?m=0
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/08/lets-take-raff-for-ride.html
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/09/time-to-remind-raff-why-hes-irrelevant.html
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/09/i-told-you-he-doesnt-know-damn-thing.html?m=0
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/09/still-waiting-raff.html?m=0
http://www.bpete1969.com/2016/08/they-dont-make-them-any-more-stupidwe.html
That's just a few of the times I debunked your crap.
I suggest you go back through them and see if you can learn anything.
Zapruder GIF stabilized on Mary Moorman.

Loading Image...

The Moorman polaroid shows Bill Newman standing directly across the street
from Moorman.

This is what we see in the Bronson image when looking at the Moorman and
Newman standing locations.

Now look at Babushka's location,she is standing on the right side of
Charles Brehm and his son.

There is no way that Babushka could have captured what is seen in the
Moorman polaroid from her standing location.


Loading Image...


http://quaneeri.blogspot.com.au/2016/08/moorman-5-polaroid.html
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-18 18:51:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by q***@yahoo.com
Post by bpete1969
Post by Ralph Cinque
Mary Moorman has always maintained that she took her photo when the
Kennedys were directly across from her, and she has even demonstrated it
that way.
But, the Moorman photo was taken at an angle from behind. That's why we're
seeing the back of their heads. It's why they aren't centered in the
picture. And most important, it explains the angle between the line of the
limo and the bottom of the photo, as explained by the physics professor.
Notice that bpete did not say anything of substance. He just made fun of
Amy. But, these are very real issue which cannot be dismissed or
trivialized.
Even when a professional photo team went to Dealey Plaza to duplicate the
Moorman photo, their photographer lined up his camera just as the
professor described: at a diagonal angle from behind. Mary did not take
her picture that way, and she never said she took her picture that way.
And it would have been crazy for her to do so because she waited hours to
photograph them. So, especially considering how slowly it was going, why
would she let them pass her before taking their picture? She wouldn't. She
couldn't. She didn't.
Yes she did demonstrate it that way. And the photo you ripped off of my
blog shows that she was pointing the camera directly across the street.
Due to the speed of the car, the limo was past the center of her lens when
she clicked the shutter button. This has all been explained before. And
demonstrated to you countless times.
As shown, your "expert" never took into consideration that the car was
traveling down a street with a 3 degree slope. His little diagram showed
Mary Moorman standing at the same elevation as the bottom of the limo. He
was severely debunked.
You also claimed that it was impossible for a portion of the motorcycle
rider's right arm to be captured in the photo while the left arm wasn't. I
proved you wrong on that one as well.
To refresh your memory...
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/08/raff-gets-all-scientific.html
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/09/ralph-cinque-confirms-moorman-polaroid.html
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/08/what-idiot.html?m=0
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/08/lets-take-raff-for-ride.html
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/09/time-to-remind-raff-why-hes-irrelevant.html
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/09/i-told-you-he-doesnt-know-damn-thing.html?m=0
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/09/still-waiting-raff.html?m=0
http://www.bpete1969.com/2016/08/they-dont-make-them-any-more-stupidwe.html
That's just a few of the times I debunked your crap.
I suggest you go back through them and see if you can learn anything.
Zapruder GIF stabilized on Mary Moorman.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-d--lDDmaDw8/V7_bl2Q-slI/AAAAAAAAAIk/nOqDDtqpNKomq5seaiQ69Q1OEPL3d7J2wCLcB/s1600/Moorman.gif
The Moorman polaroid shows Bill Newman standing directly across the street
from Moorman.
This is what we see in the Bronson image when looking at the Moorman and
Newman standing locations.
Now look at Babushka's location,she is standing on the right side of
Charles Brehm and his son.
There is no way that Babushka could have captured what is seen in the
Moorman polaroid from her standing location.
http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Charles_Bronson_Photo_Showing_JFK_s_Car_On_Elm_Street.jpg
http://quaneeri.blogspot.com.au/2016/08/moorman-5-polaroid.html
Just for fun ask him what Photogrammetry means.
Ace Kefford
2017-06-23 00:25:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by q***@yahoo.com
Post by bpete1969
Post by Ralph Cinque
Mary Moorman has always maintained that she took her photo when the
Kennedys were directly across from her, and she has even demonstrated it
that way.
But, the Moorman photo was taken at an angle from behind. That's why we're
seeing the back of their heads. It's why they aren't centered in the
picture. And most important, it explains the angle between the line of the
limo and the bottom of the photo, as explained by the physics professor.
Notice that bpete did not say anything of substance. He just made fun of
Amy. But, these are very real issue which cannot be dismissed or
trivialized.
Even when a professional photo team went to Dealey Plaza to duplicate the
Moorman photo, their photographer lined up his camera just as the
professor described: at a diagonal angle from behind. Mary did not take
her picture that way, and she never said she took her picture that way.
And it would have been crazy for her to do so because she waited hours to
photograph them. So, especially considering how slowly it was going, why
would she let them pass her before taking their picture? She wouldn't. She
couldn't. She didn't.
Yes she did demonstrate it that way. And the photo you ripped off of my
blog shows that she was pointing the camera directly across the street.
Due to the speed of the car, the limo was past the center of her lens when
she clicked the shutter button. This has all been explained before. And
demonstrated to you countless times.
As shown, your "expert" never took into consideration that the car was
traveling down a street with a 3 degree slope. His little diagram showed
Mary Moorman standing at the same elevation as the bottom of the limo. He
was severely debunked.
You also claimed that it was impossible for a portion of the motorcycle
rider's right arm to be captured in the photo while the left arm wasn't. I
proved you wrong on that one as well.
To refresh your memory...
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/08/raff-gets-all-scientific.html
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/09/ralph-cinque-confirms-moorman-polaroid.html
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/08/what-idiot.html?m=0
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/08/lets-take-raff-for-ride.html
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/09/time-to-remind-raff-why-hes-irrelevant.html
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/09/i-told-you-he-doesnt-know-damn-thing.html?m=0
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/09/still-waiting-raff.html?m=0
http://www.bpete1969.com/2016/08/they-dont-make-them-any-more-stupidwe.html
That's just a few of the times I debunked your crap.
I suggest you go back through them and see if you can learn anything.
Zapruder GIF stabilized on Mary Moorman.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-d--lDDmaDw8/V7_bl2Q-slI/AAAAAAAAAIk/nOqDDtqpNKomq5seaiQ69Q1OEPL3d7J2wCLcB/s1600/Moorman.gif
The Moorman polaroid shows Bill Newman standing directly across the street
from Moorman.
This is what we see in the Bronson image when looking at the Moorman and
Newman standing locations.
Now look at Babushka's location,she is standing on the right side of
Charles Brehm and his son.
There is no way that Babushka could have captured what is seen in the
Moorman polaroid from her standing location.
http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Charles_Bronson_Photo_Showing_JFK_s_Car_On_Elm_Street.jpg
http://quaneeri.blogspot.com.au/2016/08/moorman-5-polaroid.html
Just for fun ask him what Photogrammetry means.
It's when his father's mother attempts to take a picture.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-18 18:56:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Robin, there is a way, and she did. The Moorman photo was taken by the
Babushka Lady.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/here-are-two-images-that-were-obviously.html
Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-06-19 12:17:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Robin, there is a way, and she did. The Moorman photo was taken by the
Babushka Lady.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/here-are-two-images-that-were-obviously.html
Ralph, they could use your music videos to extract secrets from the
Taliban. No, really, they would be that effective.
bpete1969
2017-06-18 21:42:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by q***@yahoo.com
Post by bpete1969
Post by Ralph Cinque
Mary Moorman has always maintained that she took her photo when the
Kennedys were directly across from her, and she has even demonstrated it
that way.
But, the Moorman photo was taken at an angle from behind. That's why we're
seeing the back of their heads. It's why they aren't centered in the
picture. And most important, it explains the angle between the line of the
limo and the bottom of the photo, as explained by the physics professor.
Notice that bpete did not say anything of substance. He just made fun of
Amy. But, these are very real issue which cannot be dismissed or
trivialized.
Even when a professional photo team went to Dealey Plaza to duplicate the
Moorman photo, their photographer lined up his camera just as the
professor described: at a diagonal angle from behind. Mary did not take
her picture that way, and she never said she took her picture that way.
And it would have been crazy for her to do so because she waited hours to
photograph them. So, especially considering how slowly it was going, why
would she let them pass her before taking their picture? She wouldn't. She
couldn't. She didn't.
Yes she did demonstrate it that way. And the photo you ripped off of my
blog shows that she was pointing the camera directly across the street.
Due to the speed of the car, the limo was past the center of her lens when
she clicked the shutter button. This has all been explained before. And
demonstrated to you countless times.
As shown, your "expert" never took into consideration that the car was
traveling down a street with a 3 degree slope. His little diagram showed
Mary Moorman standing at the same elevation as the bottom of the limo. He
was severely debunked.
You also claimed that it was impossible for a portion of the motorcycle
rider's right arm to be captured in the photo while the left arm wasn't. I
proved you wrong on that one as well.
To refresh your memory...
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/08/raff-gets-all-scientific.html
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/09/ralph-cinque-confirms-moorman-polaroid.html
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/08/what-idiot.html?m=0
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/08/lets-take-raff-for-ride.html
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/09/time-to-remind-raff-why-hes-irrelevant.html
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/09/i-told-you-he-doesnt-know-damn-thing.html?m=0
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/09/still-waiting-raff.html?m=0
http://www.bpete1969.com/2016/08/they-dont-make-them-any-more-stupidwe.html
That's just a few of the times I debunked your crap.
I suggest you go back through them and see if you can learn anything.
Zapruder GIF stabilized on Mary Moorman.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-d--lDDmaDw8/V7_bl2Q-slI/AAAAAAAAAIk/nOqDDtqpNKomq5seaiQ69Q1OEPL3d7J2wCLcB/s1600/Moorman.gif
The Moorman polaroid shows Bill Newman standing directly across the street
from Moorman.
This is what we see in the Bronson image when looking at the Moorman and
Newman standing locations.
Now look at Babushka's location,she is standing on the right side of
Charles Brehm and his son.
There is no way that Babushka could have captured what is seen in the
Moorman polaroid from her standing location.
http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Charles_Bronson_Photo_Showing_JFK_s_Car_On_Elm_Street.jpg
http://quaneeri.blogspot.com.au/2016/08/moorman-5-polaroid.html
Great post Robin.

Unfortunately, debunking Raff*'s crap a year ago has made no impact on his
wild eyed theory. If you'll notice, Amy has hauled ass as well and refuses
to back up her claims. Two peas in a pod.
Jason Burke
2017-06-19 17:07:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by q***@yahoo.com
Post by bpete1969
Post by Ralph Cinque
Mary Moorman has always maintained that she took her photo when the
Kennedys were directly across from her, and she has even demonstrated it
that way.
But, the Moorman photo was taken at an angle from behind. That's why we're
seeing the back of their heads. It's why they aren't centered in the
picture. And most important, it explains the angle between the line of the
limo and the bottom of the photo, as explained by the physics professor.
Notice that bpete did not say anything of substance. He just made fun of
Amy. But, these are very real issue which cannot be dismissed or
trivialized.
Even when a professional photo team went to Dealey Plaza to duplicate the
Moorman photo, their photographer lined up his camera just as the
professor described: at a diagonal angle from behind. Mary did not take
her picture that way, and she never said she took her picture that way.
And it would have been crazy for her to do so because she waited hours to
photograph them. So, especially considering how slowly it was going, why
would she let them pass her before taking their picture? She wouldn't. She
couldn't. She didn't.
Yes she did demonstrate it that way. And the photo you ripped off of my
blog shows that she was pointing the camera directly across the street.
Due to the speed of the car, the limo was past the center of her lens when
she clicked the shutter button. This has all been explained before. And
demonstrated to you countless times.
As shown, your "expert" never took into consideration that the car was
traveling down a street with a 3 degree slope. His little diagram showed
Mary Moorman standing at the same elevation as the bottom of the limo. He
was severely debunked.
You also claimed that it was impossible for a portion of the motorcycle
rider's right arm to be captured in the photo while the left arm wasn't. I
proved you wrong on that one as well.
To refresh your memory...
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/08/raff-gets-all-scientific.html
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/09/ralph-cinque-confirms-moorman-polaroid.html
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/08/what-idiot.html?m=0
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/08/lets-take-raff-for-ride.html
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/09/time-to-remind-raff-why-hes-irrelevant.html
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/09/i-told-you-he-doesnt-know-damn-thing.html?m=0
http://www.bpete1969.com/2015/09/still-waiting-raff.html?m=0
http://www.bpete1969.com/2016/08/they-dont-make-them-any-more-stupidwe.html
That's just a few of the times I debunked your crap.
I suggest you go back through them and see if you can learn anything.
Zapruder GIF stabilized on Mary Moorman.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-d--lDDmaDw8/V7_bl2Q-slI/AAAAAAAAAIk/nOqDDtqpNKomq5seaiQ69Q1OEPL3d7J2wCLcB/s1600/Moorman.gif
The Moorman polaroid shows Bill Newman standing directly across the street
from Moorman.
This is what we see in the Bronson image when looking at the Moorman and
Newman standing locations.
Now look at Babushka's location,she is standing on the right side of
Charles Brehm and his son.
There is no way that Babushka could have captured what is seen in the
Moorman polaroid from her standing location.
http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Charles_Bronson_Photo_Showing_JFK_s_Car_On_Elm_Street.jpg
http://quaneeri.blogspot.com.au/2016/08/moorman-5-polaroid.html
Great post Robin.
Unfortunately, debunking Raff*'s crap a year ago has made no impact on his
wild eyed theory. If you'll notice, Amy has hauled ass as well and refuses
to back up her claims. Two peas in a pod.
Or maybe just one pea...
bpete1969
2017-06-14 19:12:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Mary Moorman has always maintained that she took her photo when the
Kennedys were directly across from her, and she has even demonstrated it
that way.
But, the Moorman photo was taken at an angle from behind. That's why we're
seeing the back of their heads. It's why they aren't centered in the
picture. And most important, it explains the angle between the line of the
limo and the bottom of the photo, as explained by the physics professor.
Notice that bpete did not say anything of substance. He just made fun of
Amy. But, these are very real issue which cannot be dismissed or
trivialized.
Even when a professional photo team went to Dealey Plaza to duplicate the
Moorman photo, their photographer lined up his camera just as the
professor described: at a diagonal angle from behind. Mary did not take
her picture that way, and she never said she took her picture that way.
And it would have been crazy for her to do so because she waited hours to
photograph them. So, especially considering how slowly it was going, why
would she let them pass her before taking their picture? She wouldn't. She
couldn't. She didn't.
Here's one more blog post showing that Raff* has no concept of how
photography works...

http://www.bpete1969.com/2016/08/raff-confirms-his-stupidity.html
bpete1969
2017-06-15 02:56:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Mary Moorman has always maintained that she took her photo when the
Kennedys were directly across from her, and she has even demonstrated it
that way.
But, the Moorman photo was taken at an angle from behind. That's why we're
seeing the back of their heads. It's why they aren't centered in the
picture. And most important, it explains the angle between the line of the
limo and the bottom of the photo, as explained by the physics professor.
Notice that bpete did not say anything of substance. He just made fun of
Amy. But, these are very real issue which cannot be dismissed or
trivialized.
Even when a professional photo team went to Dealey Plaza to duplicate the
Moorman photo, their photographer lined up his camera just as the
professor described: at a diagonal angle from behind. Mary did not take
her picture that way, and she never said she took her picture that way.
And it would have been crazy for her to do so because she waited hours to
photograph them. So, especially considering how slowly it was going, why
would she let them pass her before taking their picture? She wouldn't. She
couldn't. She didn't.
Raff*....two posts ago you posted this...

"And it would have been crazy for her to do so because she waited hours to
photograph them. So, especially considering how slowly it was going, why
would she let them pass her before taking their picture? She wouldn't. She
couldn't. She didn't. "

Simple question that you have yet to answer even though you have been
asked repeatedly over the years...If Moorman wouldn't, couldn't take a
picture of the limo after it passed her position....why would, why could
babushka lady take a picture of the limo after it passed her?
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-16 01:00:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by Ralph Cinque
Mary Moorman has always maintained that she took her photo when the
Kennedys were directly across from her, and she has even demonstrated it
that way.
But, the Moorman photo was taken at an angle from behind. That's why we're
seeing the back of their heads. It's why they aren't centered in the
picture. And most important, it explains the angle between the line of the
limo and the bottom of the photo, as explained by the physics professor.
Notice that bpete did not say anything of substance. He just made fun of
Amy. But, these are very real issue which cannot be dismissed or
trivialized.
Even when a professional photo team went to Dealey Plaza to duplicate the
Moorman photo, their photographer lined up his camera just as the
professor described: at a diagonal angle from behind. Mary did not take
her picture that way, and she never said she took her picture that way.
And it would have been crazy for her to do so because she waited hours to
photograph them. So, especially considering how slowly it was going, why
would she let them pass her before taking their picture? She wouldn't. She
couldn't. She didn't.
Raff*....two posts ago you posted this...
"And it would have been crazy for her to do so because she waited hours to
photograph them. So, especially considering how slowly it was going, why
would she let them pass her before taking their picture? She wouldn't. She
couldn't. She didn't. "
Hours? WHo? Mary Moorman took several photos, but she could only take one
after ejecting the previous one. So she had taken one earlier and wanted
to get a closeup of the Kennedys. She did. She did not know to coordinate
it with the last shot. She was startled by the last shot. Why don't you
complain about Altgens who was the professional.

He missed the head shot entirely. It took him a few seconds to manually
wind his camera because he was using is own personal camera.
Post by bpete1969
Simple question that you have yet to answer even though you have been
asked repeatedly over the years...If Moorman wouldn't, couldn't take a
picture of the limo after it passed her position....why would, why could
babushka lady take a picture of the limo after it passed her?
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-16 02:13:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
That is not a difficult question at all. Babushka Lady was standing back.
She did film the limo as it was approaching, and she turned in that
direction to do so. But, then she was temporarily blocked by Brehm and his
son. So, she turned the other way- west- and she pointed her camera and
waited for the limo to enter her camera field. She would not have had to
do that if she went right up to the curb, and she could have. But, I
suspect that she didn't want to get that close. You know, the bullets and
all.

So, that is not a problem at all- for me. Babushka Lady wasn't there for
hours. She wasn't poised to shoot from the moment the limo rounded the
corner- as Mary Moorman was.

You are no good at this. You're not up to challenging me. You are no
threat to me; not this way. We won't talk about the other ways; not here.
Jason Burke
2017-06-16 23:32:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
That is not a difficult question at all. Babushka Lady was standing back.
She did film the limo as it was approaching, and she turned in that
direction to do so. But, then she was temporarily blocked by Brehm and his
son. So, she turned the other way- west- and she pointed her camera and
waited for the limo to enter her camera field. She would not have had to
do that if she went right up to the curb, and she could have. But, I
suspect that she didn't want to get that close. You know, the bullets and
all.
So, that is not a problem at all- for me. Babushka Lady wasn't there for
hours. She wasn't poised to shoot from the moment the limo rounded the
corner- as Mary Moorman was.
You are no good at this. You're not up to challenging me. You are no
threat to me; not this way. We won't talk about the other ways; not here.
I'm thinking Ralph was Babushka Lady.

Oooohhhh. Ralph's being a tough guy! Impressive!
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-16 23:37:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
That is not a difficult question at all. Babushka Lady was standing back.
She did film the limo as it was approaching, and she turned in that
direction to do so. But, then she was temporarily blocked by Brehm and his
son. So, she turned the other way- west- and she pointed her camera and
waited for the limo to enter her camera field. She would not have had to
do that if she went right up to the curb, and she could have. But, I
suspect that she didn't want to get that close. You know, the bullets and
all.
So, that is not a problem at all- for me. Babushka Lady wasn't there for
hours. She wasn't poised to shoot from the moment the limo rounded the
corner- as Mary Moorman was.
In fact, didn't she run up at the last minute? Check the films.
Post by Ralph Cinque
You are no good at this. You're not up to challenging me. You are no
threat to me; not this way. We won't talk about the other ways; not here.
bpete1969
2017-06-17 03:17:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
That is not a difficult question at all. Babushka Lady was standing back.
She did film the limo as it was approaching, and she turned in that
direction to do so. But, then she was temporarily blocked by Brehm and his
son. So, she turned the other way- west- and she pointed her camera and
waited for the limo to enter her camera field. She would not have had to
do that if she went right up to the curb, and she could have. But, I
suspect that she didn't want to get that close. You know, the bullets and
all.
So, that is not a problem at all- for me. Babushka Lady wasn't there for
hours. She wasn't poised to shoot from the moment the limo rounded the
corner- as Mary Moorman was.
You are no good at this. You're not up to challenging me. You are no
threat to me; not this way. We won't talk about the other ways; not here.
The question wasn't difficult but your ability to rationally answer the
question seems to be. For years, you have stated that you know that people
don't, won't, shouldn't, couldn't or wouldn't do certain things. But that
is immediately followed by an explanation of someone else doing exactly
what you claim no one would do.

Your Babushka Lady theory is laughable when you consider that her
"filming" of the limo would have resulted in her capturing the back of the
limo and the back of the officers on motorcycles at the time of the
headshot. Her filming of the limo at the point of the headshot would have
resulted in Zapruder being out of camera's field of view. You have no idea
how long Babushka Lady was there. You just make things up to fit your wild
eyed theory. But then again, we expect that from you. You will create a
story, call that story fact and as a last resort, claim something was
faked when confronted with evidence that you're wrong.

The fact that you've been laughed out of every forum on the net save this
one, is a testament as to how good you are at this. You're not up to
challenging anyone on any subject. No one is a threat to you Raff*. It's
all in your head. In fact, it's safe to say that all of those terrible
"crimes" committed against you, (as you have mentioned several times on
this forum) were all home based, if you know what I mean.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-17 17:55:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
No. I don't know what you mean. Home-based? No, it wasn't. A certain
person traveled interstate to commit those crimes. And that person did
inform me that he was coming to Texas. Do you remember saying that?

And no, you're wrong again about Babushka Lady. We have identified the
exact frame from the Muchmore film which shows Babushka Lady taking the
Moorman photo. And for your information, the Moorman photo was taken
BEFORE the fatal head shot.

Notice how the positioning of the rear wheel of the limo and the front
wheel of the bike is almost exactly the same in Moorman and Muchmore. But
wait! In Moorman, it's supposed to be Hargis' bike while in Muchmore, it
is definitely and obviously Martin's bike. So, how could that be? It
couldn't. In both of them, we are looking at Martin's bike.

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/this-is-muchmore-frame-which.html
Jason Burke
2017-06-18 00:22:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
No. I don't know what you mean. Home-based? No, it wasn't. A certain
person traveled interstate to commit those crimes. And that person did
inform me that he was coming to Texas. Do you remember saying that?
And no, you're wrong again about Babushka Lady. We have identified the
exact frame from the Muchmore film which shows Babushka Lady taking the
Moorman photo. And for your information, the Moorman photo was taken
BEFORE the fatal head shot.
Notice how the positioning of the rear wheel of the limo and the front
wheel of the bike is almost exactly the same in Moorman and Muchmore. But
wait! In Moorman, it's supposed to be Hargis' bike while in Muchmore, it
is definitely and obviously Martin's bike. So, how could that be? It
couldn't. In both of them, we are looking at Martin's bike.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/this-is-muchmore-frame-which.html
What the hell are you talking about, Ralph? Do you even know anymore,
Ralph?
Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-06-18 21:33:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Ralph Cinque
No. I don't know what you mean. Home-based? No, it wasn't. A certain
person traveled interstate to commit those crimes. And that person did
inform me that he was coming to Texas. Do you remember saying that?
And no, you're wrong again about Babushka Lady. We have identified the
exact frame from the Muchmore film which shows Babushka Lady taking the
Moorman photo. And for your information, the Moorman photo was taken
BEFORE the fatal head shot.
Notice how the positioning of the rear wheel of the limo and the front
wheel of the bike is almost exactly the same in Moorman and Muchmore. But
wait! In Moorman, it's supposed to be Hargis' bike while in Muchmore, it
is definitely and obviously Martin's bike. So, how could that be? It
couldn't. In both of them, we are looking at Martin's bike.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/this-is-muchmore-frame-which.html
What the hell are you talking about, Ralph? Do you even know anymore,
Ralph?
I hope you donate your brain to science, Ralph……….
tumor and all.
bpete1969
2017-06-18 21:43:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
No. I don't know what you mean. Home-based? No, it wasn't. A certain
person traveled interstate to commit those crimes. And that person did
inform me that he was coming to Texas. Do you remember saying that?
And no, you're wrong again about Babushka Lady. We have identified the
exact frame from the Muchmore film which shows Babushka Lady taking the
Moorman photo. And for your information, the Moorman photo was taken
BEFORE the fatal head shot.
Notice how the positioning of the rear wheel of the limo and the front
wheel of the bike is almost exactly the same in Moorman and Muchmore. But
wait! In Moorman, it's supposed to be Hargis' bike while in Muchmore, it
is definitely and obviously Martin's bike. So, how could that be? It
couldn't. In both of them, we are looking at Martin's bike.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/this-is-muchmore-frame-which.html
Raff* pay attention. Your made up drama is bullshit. No one has traveled
interstate to cause you any harm. Your truck got keyed by someone you
know. The famous tomato-cide was done by someone you know. The pictures
sent to Backes were taken by someone you know.

Now back to the topic at hand. Your Babushka Lady took the Moorman photo
theory is crap. There is no way she could have taken a picture at the time
of the headshot and not captured the back of the motorcycle officers. No
way at all.

Your theory is as feeble as Marsh.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-19 22:09:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
bpete, you speak with forked tongue. You're that things we are not allowed
to call people here. And besides, even theoretically, how would you know?
So, you are admitting that you were involved in it, just that you didn't
personally do it.
Jason Burke
2017-06-21 02:22:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
bpete, you speak with forked tongue. You're that things we are not allowed
to call people here. And besides, even theoretically, how would you know?
So, you are admitting that you were involved in it, just that you didn't
personally do it.
Good job, Ralph! How's that larnin' to quote go, Ralph?
Not so good, Ralph.
bpete1969
2017-06-19 01:23:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
And no, you're wrong again about Babushka Lady. We have identified the
exact frame from the Muchmore film which shows Babushka Lady taking the
Moorman photo. And for your information, the Moorman photo was taken
BEFORE the fatal head shot.
Notice how the positioning of the rear wheel of the limo and the front
wheel of the bike is almost exactly the same in Moorman and Muchmore. But
wait! In Moorman, it's supposed to be Hargis' bike while in Muchmore, it
is definitely and obviously Martin's bike. So, how could that be? It
couldn't. In both of them, we are looking at Martin's bike.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/this-is-muchmore-frame-which.html
Raff*, your claim is completely bogus. Martin's front tire was never
captured in Moorman's photo.

In addition, Zapruder proves that from the time the two officers reached
Moorman, Martin was never in front of Hargis.

Yo Amy....you're being schooled on Raff*'s purposely deceptive
description. Read and learn...

http://www.oswaldinnocencecampaign.com/2017/06/raff-cant-tell-his-moorman-from-his.html
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-19 17:09:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Amy, I have responded to that inept rendering here:

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/youve-got-to-be-pretty-damn-stupid-to.html

It's his claims that are completely bogus. It IS Martin's front tire that
is encroaching upon the rear wheel of the limo in the Moorman photo. And
Zapruder doesn't prove anything, being a highly manipulated and altered
film. And, I never said that Martin was ever in front of Hargis. I said
that in both the Muchmore film and the Moorman photo, he appears to be.

And you should get an education yourself before expecting anyone to learn
anything from you.
bpete1969
2017-06-19 23:34:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/youve-got-to-be-pretty-damn-stupid-to.html
It's his claims that are completely bogus. It IS Martin's front tire that
is encroaching upon the rear wheel of the limo in the Moorman photo. And
Zapruder doesn't prove anything, being a highly manipulated and altered
film. And, I never said that Martin was ever in front of Hargis. I said
that in both the Muchmore film and the Moorman photo, he appears to be.
And you should get an education yourself before expecting anyone to learn
anything from you.
How can Martin's tire be "encroaching" on the rear wheel of the limo when
it is Hargis riding the motorcycle?

Martin's front tire is not in the Moorman photo. If it is, prove it.

It's really that simple.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-20 22:45:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
No, it is definitely Martin's wheel. And that wheel doesn't even go to
Hargis. It's in a different plane. And that's why they needed the
thumbprint- to take Martin out of the photo. An "accidental" thumbprint,
was it? Can anyone really say that with a straight face? There isn't even
an imaginable way that it could happen by accident. Show me one other
photo with a similar accidental. It's damage from pressure. It's not water
damage. I really don't know how they did it it, but I know it was no
ordinary thing. And I know the reason why they did it: to take BJ Martin
out of the photo. He was depicted slightly in front of Hargis. I don't say
he was in front of Hargis on the street. I say he was depicted in front of
Hargis in the photo. There are two motorcycles there, and what we are
seeing, thanks to the thumbprint, is the front of one (Martin's) and the
rear of the other (Hargis').
bpete1969
2017-06-21 18:25:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
No, it is definitely Martin's wheel. And that wheel doesn't even go to
Hargis. It's in a different plane. And that's why they needed the
thumbprint- to take Martin out of the photo. An "accidental" thumbprint,
was it? Can anyone really say that with a straight face? There isn't even
an imaginable way that it could happen by accident. Show me one other
photo with a similar accidental. It's damage from pressure. It's not water
damage. I really don't know how they did it it, but I know it was no
ordinary thing. And I know the reason why they did it: to take BJ Martin
out of the photo. He was depicted slightly in front of Hargis. I don't say
he was in front of Hargis on the street. I say he was depicted in front of
Hargis in the photo. There are two motorcycles there, and what we are
seeing, thanks to the thumbprint, is the front of one (Martin's) and the
rear of the other (Hargis').
How you can be so wrong is amazing.

There are three motorcycles in Moorman. One on the far side of the limo
and two on the near side. However, you can only see the upper part of
Martin's bike nearest Moorman. Martin's front tire is not visible.
Martin's windshield is seen in Moorman and it clearly shows that Hargis
was further down the street than Hargis.

Those are facts.

Now as to your claim that no Polaroid has ever been dameged by finger
prints, I again show you prrof that you are wrong. In this article, which
you have seen before on my blog, it shows Polaroids that have finger print
damage.

http://techland.time.com/2013/01/14/kennedy-polaroid/

Now, it's up to you to prove Martin's front tire is seen in Moorman.
Saying it is, is not proof.

Try again Raff*.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-22 00:51:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by Ralph Cinque
No, it is definitely Martin's wheel. And that wheel doesn't even go to
Hargis. It's in a different plane. And that's why they needed the
thumbprint- to take Martin out of the photo. An "accidental" thumbprint,
was it? Can anyone really say that with a straight face? There isn't even
an imaginable way that it could happen by accident. Show me one other
photo with a similar accidental. It's damage from pressure. It's not water
damage. I really don't know how they did it it, but I know it was no
ordinary thing. And I know the reason why they did it: to take BJ Martin
out of the photo. He was depicted slightly in front of Hargis. I don't say
he was in front of Hargis on the street. I say he was depicted in front of
Hargis in the photo. There are two motorcycles there, and what we are
seeing, thanks to the thumbprint, is the front of one (Martin's) and the
rear of the other (Hargis').
How you can be so wrong is amazing.
OMG. Do you mean we can't call Mary Moorman a liar because she still
posts here?
Post by bpete1969
There are three motorcycles in Moorman. One on the far side of the limo
and two on the near side. However, you can only see the upper part of
Martin's bike nearest Moorman. Martin's front tire is not visible.
Martin's windshield is seen in Moorman and it clearly shows that Hargis
was further down the street than Hargis.
Those are facts.
We know that, but she doesn't.
Maybe you can diagram this for her or mark their names on some frames.
Post by bpete1969
Now as to your claim that no Polaroid has ever been dameged by finger
prints, I again show you prrof that you are wrong. In this article, which
you have seen before on my blog, it shows Polaroids that have finger print
damage.
http://techland.time.com/2013/01/14/kennedy-polaroid/
Now, it's up to you to prove Martin's front tire is seen in Moorman.
Saying it is, is not proof.
Try again Raff*.
bpete1969
2017-06-22 19:45:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Ralph Cinque
No, it is definitely Martin's wheel. And that wheel doesn't even go to
Hargis. It's in a different plane. And that's why they needed the
thumbprint- to take Martin out of the photo. An "accidental" thumbprint,
was it? Can anyone really say that with a straight face? There isn't even
an imaginable way that it could happen by accident. Show me one other
photo with a similar accidental. It's damage from pressure. It's not water
damage. I really don't know how they did it it, but I know it was no
ordinary thing. And I know the reason why they did it: to take BJ Martin
out of the photo. He was depicted slightly in front of Hargis. I don't say
he was in front of Hargis on the street. I say he was depicted in front of
Hargis in the photo. There are two motorcycles there, and what we are
seeing, thanks to the thumbprint, is the front of one (Martin's) and the
rear of the other (Hargis').
How you can be so wrong is amazing.
OMG. Do you mean we can't call Mary Moorman a liar because she still
posts here?
Post by bpete1969
There are three motorcycles in Moorman. One on the far side of the limo
and two on the near side. However, you can only see the upper part of
Martin's bike nearest Moorman. Martin's front tire is not visible.
Martin's windshield is seen in Moorman and it clearly shows that Hargis
was further down the street than Hargis.
Those are facts.
We know that, but she doesn't.
Maybe you can diagram this for her or mark their names on some frames.
Post by bpete1969
Now as to your claim that no Polaroid has ever been dameged by finger
prints, I again show you prrof that you are wrong. In this article, which
you have seen before on my blog, it shows Polaroids that have finger print
damage.
http://techland.time.com/2013/01/14/kennedy-polaroid/
Now, it's up to you to prove Martin's front tire is seen in Moorman.
Saying it is, is not proof.
Try again Raff*.
Another perfect example of Marsh not knowing to whom or to what he is
responding.
q***@yahoo.com
2017-06-23 00:38:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Ralph Cinque
No, it is definitely Martin's wheel. And that wheel doesn't even go to
Hargis. It's in a different plane. And that's why they needed the
thumbprint- to take Martin out of the photo. An "accidental" thumbprint,
was it? Can anyone really say that with a straight face? There isn't even
an imaginable way that it could happen by accident. Show me one other
photo with a similar accidental. It's damage from pressure. It's not water
damage. I really don't know how they did it it, but I know it was no
ordinary thing. And I know the reason why they did it: to take BJ Martin
out of the photo. He was depicted slightly in front of Hargis. I don't say
he was in front of Hargis on the street. I say he was depicted in front of
Hargis in the photo. There are two motorcycles there, and what we are
seeing, thanks to the thumbprint, is the front of one (Martin's) and the
rear of the other (Hargis').
How you can be so wrong is amazing.
OMG. Do you mean we can't call Mary Moorman a liar because she still
posts here?
Post by bpete1969
There are three motorcycles in Moorman. One on the far side of the limo
and two on the near side. However, you can only see the upper part of
Martin's bike nearest Moorman. Martin's front tire is not visible.
Martin's windshield is seen in Moorman and it clearly shows that Hargis
was further down the street than Hargis.
Those are facts.
We know that, but she doesn't.
Maybe you can diagram this for her or mark their names on some frames.
Post by bpete1969
Now as to your claim that no Polaroid has ever been dameged by finger
prints, I again show you prrof that you are wrong. In this article, which
you have seen before on my blog, it shows Polaroids that have finger print
damage.
http://techland.time.com/2013/01/14/kennedy-polaroid/
Now, it's up to you to prove Martin's front tire is seen in Moorman.
Saying it is, is not proof.
Try again Raff*.
Another perfect example of Marsh not knowing to whom or to what he is
responding.
Hargis in front of Martin

Loading Image...
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-22 02:29:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Then let's make a little wager. I'll show up with some Polaroids, and some
money. You show up with some money. The money is handed over by both of us
to an impartial third party. Then, you have at the Polaroids, trying to
duplicate the thumbprint on the Moorman photo. You would not be allowed to
use any kind of agent on your thumb. Just your thumb. We'll let the
impartial third party decide whether you succeeded or not. How about Amy
as the judge? Winner takes all.
Jason Burke
2017-06-22 23:07:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Then let's make a little wager. I'll show up with some Polaroids, and some
money. You show up with some money. The money is handed over by both of us
to an impartial third party. Then, you have at the Polaroids, trying to
duplicate the thumbprint on the Moorman photo. You would not be allowed to
use any kind of agent on your thumb. Just your thumb. We'll let the
impartial third party decide whether you succeeded or not. How about Amy
as the judge? Winner takes all.
Ain't Amy a, uh, close personal friend of yours, Ralph?
bpete1969
2017-06-22 23:11:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Then let's make a little wager. I'll show up with some Polaroids, and some
money. You show up with some money. The money is handed over by both of us
to an impartial third party. Then, you have at the Polaroids, trying to
duplicate the thumbprint on the Moorman photo. You would not be allowed to
use any kind of agent on your thumb. Just your thumb. We'll let the
impartial third party decide whether you succeeded or not. How about Amy
as the judge? Winner takes all.
Is Amy your knew object of affection? Should I explain to her how you got
the nickname Raff*?

You already owe me $10 thousand over losing past bets. And considering
that you have stated that your JFK research is your new vocation, I don't
see the potential for your to earn the money to pay me what you already
owe me.

Your task is simple Raff*, prove that Martin's front tire is seen in
Moorman.
Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-06-22 23:40:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Then let's make a little wager. I'll show up with some Polaroids, and some
money. You show up with some money. The money is handed over by both of us
to an impartial third party. Then, you have at the Polaroids, trying to
duplicate the thumbprint on the Moorman photo. You would not be allowed to
use any kind of agent on your thumb. Just your thumb. We'll let the
impartial third party decide whether you succeeded or not. How about Amy
as the judge? Winner takes all.
OK, Ralph……… ONE MILLION DOLLARS, Little Man !!
(insert pinkie in corner of mouth)
q***@yahoo.com
2017-06-22 14:03:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by Ralph Cinque
No, it is definitely Martin's wheel. And that wheel doesn't even go to
Hargis. It's in a different plane. And that's why they needed the
thumbprint- to take Martin out of the photo. An "accidental" thumbprint,
was it? Can anyone really say that with a straight face? There isn't even
an imaginable way that it could happen by accident. Show me one other
photo with a similar accidental. It's damage from pressure. It's not water
damage. I really don't know how they did it it, but I know it was no
ordinary thing. And I know the reason why they did it: to take BJ Martin
out of the photo. He was depicted slightly in front of Hargis. I don't say
he was in front of Hargis on the street. I say he was depicted in front of
Hargis in the photo. There are two motorcycles there, and what we are
seeing, thanks to the thumbprint, is the front of one (Martin's) and the
rear of the other (Hargis').
How you can be so wrong is amazing.
There are three motorcycles in Moorman. One on the far side of the limo
and two on the near side. However, you can only see the upper part of
Martin's bike nearest Moorman. Martin's front tire is not visible.
Martin's windshield is seen in Moorman and it clearly shows that Hargis
was further down the street than Martin.
Correct Bpete.

Obviously Hargis was ahead of Martin.

So much for Cinque's Professor.

http://quaneeri.blogspot.com.au/2016/08/back-to-drawing-board-professor.html
Post by bpete1969
Those are facts.
Now as to your claim that no Polaroid has ever been dameged by finger
prints, I again show you prrof that you are wrong. In this article, which
you have seen before on my blog, it shows Polaroids that have finger print
damage.
http://techland.time.com/2013/01/14/kennedy-polaroid/
Now, it's up to you to prove Martin's front tire is seen in Moorman.
Saying it is, is not proof.
Try again Raff*.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-23 00:25:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Our claim is not that Martin was in front of Hargis but that he appears to
be. Look: You don't deny that he appears to be in front of Hargis in the
Muchmore film, do you?

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/isnt-it-obvious-that-martin-appears-to.html

So now, you want to claim ignorance of the difference between "is" and
"appears to be"?
bpete1969
2017-06-23 00:03:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by Ralph Cinque
No, it is definitely Martin's wheel. And that wheel doesn't even go to
Hargis. It's in a different plane. And that's why they needed the
thumbprint- to take Martin out of the photo. An "accidental" thumbprint,
was it? Can anyone really say that with a straight face? There isn't even
an imaginable way that it could happen by accident. Show me one other
photo with a similar accidental. It's damage from pressure. It's not water
damage. I really don't know how they did it it, but I know it was no
ordinary thing. And I know the reason why they did it: to take BJ Martin
out of the photo. He was depicted slightly in front of Hargis. I don't say
he was in front of Hargis on the street. I say he was depicted in front of
Hargis in the photo. There are two motorcycles there, and what we are
seeing, thanks to the thumbprint, is the front of one (Martin's) and the
rear of the other (Hargis').
How you can be so wrong is amazing.
There are three motorcycles in Moorman. One on the far side of the limo
and two on the near side. However, you can only see the upper part of
Martin's bike nearest Moorman. Martin's front tire is not visible.
Martin's windshield is seen in Moorman and it clearly shows that Hargis
was further down the street than Hargis.
Those are facts.
Now as to your claim that no Polaroid has ever been dameged by finger
prints, I again show you prrof that you are wrong. In this article, which
you have seen before on my blog, it shows Polaroids that have finger print
damage.
http://techland.time.com/2013/01/14/kennedy-polaroid/
Now, it's up to you to prove Martin's front tire is seen in Moorman.
Saying it is, is not proof.
Try again Raff*.
Corrected post:

There are three motorcycles in Moorman. One on the far side of the limo
and two on the near side. However, you can only see the upper part of
Martin's bike nearest Moorman. Martin's front tire is not visible.
Martin's windshield is seen in Moorman and it clearly shows that Hargis
was further down the street than Martin.

...

Now as to your claim that no Polaroid has ever been damaged by finger
prints, I again show you proof that you are wrong. In this article, which
you have seen before on my blog, it shows Polaroids that have finger print
damage.

http://techland.time.com/2013/01/14/kennedy-polaroid/
Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-06-19 17:10:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by Ralph Cinque
And no, you're wrong again about Babushka Lady. We have identified the
exact frame from the Muchmore film which shows Babushka Lady taking the
Moorman photo. And for your information, the Moorman photo was taken
BEFORE the fatal head shot.
Notice how the positioning of the rear wheel of the limo and the front
wheel of the bike is almost exactly the same in Moorman and Muchmore. But
wait! In Moorman, it's supposed to be Hargis' bike while in Muchmore, it
is definitely and obviously Martin's bike. So, how could that be? It
couldn't. In both of them, we are looking at Martin's bike.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/this-is-muchmore-frame-which.html
Raff*, your claim is completely bogus. Martin's front tire was never
captured in Moorman's photo.
In addition, Zapruder proves that from the time the two officers reached
Moorman, Martin was never in front of Hargis.
Yo Amy....you're being schooled on Raff*'s purposely deceptive
description. Read and learn...
http://www.oswaldinnocencecampaign.com/2017/06/raff-cant-tell-his-moorman-from-his.html
I think it's time we re-posted the famous 'Czech Man' entry by Ralph from
all those years ago. Remember that one? It really says it all about the
little fella's mental state. But dang, getting all those 'senior members'
together…………
Janney………. Fetzer……….
Judyth (no, wait……. she resigned and started her OWN
OIC…..remember?)…….. Salandria……..
etc. He's even got dead people on his roster. Like Gogol did.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-19 22:10:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by Ralph Cinque
And no, you're wrong again about Babushka Lady. We have identified the
exact frame from the Muchmore film which shows Babushka Lady taking the
Moorman photo. And for your information, the Moorman photo was taken
BEFORE the fatal head shot.
Notice how the positioning of the rear wheel of the limo and the front
wheel of the bike is almost exactly the same in Moorman and Muchmore. But
wait! In Moorman, it's supposed to be Hargis' bike while in Muchmore, it
is definitely and obviously Martin's bike. So, how could that be? It
couldn't. In both of them, we are looking at Martin's bike.
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/06/this-is-muchmore-frame-which.html
Raff*, your claim is completely bogus. Martin's front tire was never
captured in Moorman's photo.
In addition, Zapruder proves that from the time the two officers reached
Moorman, Martin was never in front of Hargis.
Yo Amy....you're being schooled on Raff*'s purposely deceptive
description. Read and learn...
http://www.oswaldinnocencecampaign.com/2017/06/raff-cant-tell-his-moorman-from-his.html
Maybe some people here can't see the sprocket hole area.
Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-06-17 03:21:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
That is not a difficult question at all. Babushka Lady was standing back.
She did film the limo as it was approaching, and she turned in that
direction to do so. But, then she was temporarily blocked by Brehm and his
son. So, she turned the other way- west- and she pointed her camera and
waited for the limo to enter her camera field. She would not have had to
do that if she went right up to the curb, and she could have. But, I
suspect that she didn't want to get that close. You know, the bullets and
all.
So, that is not a problem at all- for me. Babushka Lady wasn't there for
hours. She wasn't poised to shoot from the moment the limo rounded the
corner- as Mary Moorman was.
You are no good at this. You're not up to challenging me. You are no
threat to me; not this way. We won't talk about the other ways; not here.
Ralph and his 'other ways'. A giant of a man he be, McGee.
r***@sbcglobal.net
2017-06-18 00:27:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
Mary Moorman has always maintained that she took her photo when the
Kennedys were directly across from her, and she has even demonstrated it
that way.
But, the Moorman photo was taken at an angle from behind. That's why we're
seeing the back of their heads. It's why they aren't centered in the
picture. And most important, it explains the angle between the line of the
limo and the bottom of the photo, as explained by the physics professor.
Notice that bpete did not say anything of substance. He just made fun of
Amy. But, these are very real issue which cannot be dismissed or
trivialized.
Even when a professional photo team went to Dealey Plaza to duplicate the
Moorman photo, their photographer lined up his camera just as the
professor described: at a diagonal angle from behind. Mary did not take
her picture that way, and she never said she took her picture that way.
And it would have been crazy for her to do so because she waited hours to
photograph them. So, especially considering how slowly it was going, why
would she let them pass her before taking their picture? She wouldn't. She
couldn't. She didn't.
Mary Moorman may have maintained that she took her photo when the
Kennedy's were directly across from her, but the Zapruder film indicated
that Moorman still had the camera up to her eye at the time JFK was shot
in the head.
Ralph Cinque
2017-06-18 23:14:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The Zapruder film? DON'T bring up the Zapruder film in relation to Mary
Moorman because the Zapruder film is a monstrosity in relation to Mary
Moorman. In the Zapruder film there is one frame-image of her that repeats
from the late Z290s to her last frame at Z316. And that is not OK since
she was supposedly following a moving vehicle with her eyes and with her
camera. How could she not move, not twitch, from when the Kennedys were
approaching her to when the Kennedys were behind her? In the film, Mary is
still pointing her camera straight ahead even after the Kennedys had long
passed her. This was done to sell the idea that Mary took her picture
later than she did. You stop thinking that I have to accept manipulated
evidence as real. I do not, and I do not. That is, I do not have to accept
it, and I don't accept it.
Jason Burke
2017-06-19 17:07:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
The Zapruder film? DON'T bring up the Zapruder film in relation to Mary
Moorman because the Zapruder film is a monstrosity in relation to Mary
Moorman. In the Zapruder film there is one frame-image of her that repeats
from the late Z290s to her last frame at Z316. And that is not OK since
she was supposedly following a moving vehicle with her eyes and with her
camera. How could she not move, not twitch, from when the Kennedys were
approaching her to when the Kennedys were behind her? In the film, Mary is
still pointing her camera straight ahead even after the Kennedys had long
passed her. This was done to sell the idea that Mary took her picture
later than she did. You stop thinking that I have to accept manipulated
evidence as real. I do not, and I do not. That is, I do not have to accept
it, and I don't accept it.
Yes, Ralph. We all know you don't accept reality.
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-19 23:23:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralph Cinque
The Zapruder film? DON'T bring up the Zapruder film in relation to Mary
Moorman because the Zapruder film is a monstrosity in relation to Mary
Moorman. In the Zapruder film there is one frame-image of her that repeats
from the late Z290s to her last frame at Z316. And that is not OK since
she was supposedly following a moving vehicle with her eyes and with her
camera. How could she not move, not twitch, from when the Kennedys were
approaching her to when the Kennedys were behind her? In the film, Mary is
still pointing her camera straight ahead even after the Kennedys had long
passed her. This was done to sell the idea that Mary took her picture
later than she did. You stop thinking that I have to accept manipulated
evidence as real. I do not, and I do not. That is, I do not have to accept
it, and I don't accept it.
What are you blabbing about? Show us.
Why don't you also claim that the Moorman photo was altered?
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-19 12:12:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Ralph Cinque
Mary Moorman has always maintained that she took her photo when the
Kennedys were directly across from her, and she has even demonstrated it
that way.
But, the Moorman photo was taken at an angle from behind. That's why we're
seeing the back of their heads. It's why they aren't centered in the
picture. And most important, it explains the angle between the line of the
limo and the bottom of the photo, as explained by the physics professor.
Notice that bpete did not say anything of substance. He just made fun of
Amy. But, these are very real issue which cannot be dismissed or
trivialized.
Even when a professional photo team went to Dealey Plaza to duplicate the
Moorman photo, their photographer lined up his camera just as the
professor described: at a diagonal angle from behind. Mary did not take
her picture that way, and she never said she took her picture that way.
And it would have been crazy for her to do so because she waited hours to
photograph them. So, especially considering how slowly it was going, why
would she let them pass her before taking their picture? She wouldn't. She
couldn't. She didn't.
Mary Moorman may have maintained that she took her photo when the
Kennedy's were directly across from her, but the Zapruder film indicated
that Moorman still had the camera up to her eye at the time JFK was shot
in the head.
May I state the obvious? Mary Moorman was not an expert on Polaroid. All
she knew is when she pushed the button. Not the exact millisecond when
the photo was actually exposed.
Betty Drew
2017-06-20 01:49:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Where is Amy?
Mark OBLAZNEY
2017-06-21 02:55:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Betty Drew
Where is Amy?
Why is Ralph Cheeseburguh ?
Anthony Marsh
2017-06-22 00:48:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark OBLAZNEY
Post by Betty Drew
Where is Amy?
Why is Ralph Cheeseburguh ?
Where's MY cheeseburger?
Betty Drew
2017-06-22 23:08:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Amy is a impartial third party?
How much cash am I supposed to bring?
Loading...