[Ben Holmes]

(09-17-2016, 12:10 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  It is perplexing that IF there was indeed another Moorman photo that it is missing from  the evidence.

In cases where it's beyond dispute that there were photos missing - such as the interior shots of JFK's chest - you don't appear "perplexed" at all. Why is that, Patrick?

Or will you publicly state that you're perplexed at the missing interior photos?
 

(09-17-2016, 12:10 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  However there is no doubt that a rifle was seen pointing out of the 6th floor SE corner window as it was seen by at least 5 and possibly 6 people as I recall and it was seen as the sound of shots was heard.

It is possible that IF Moorman did take an earlier picture that she did so when the assassin was not visible - or for example was indescernable given the rather poor quality of the camera and film.

This is a silly hypothesis... it offers no explanatory power to the question of why it was covered up. If it showed nothing, then there was NO REASON WHATSOEVER that it wouldn't be retained as evidence. Not showing an assassin simply means it was taken seconds before or seconds after he was at the window.

But if the photo DID show an assassin, it must have clearly contradicted the official story... either by demonstrating that it wasn't Oswald, or by showing that there were two people there - as some witnesses have stated.

The only real and credible reason for the disappearance of this photo is that it contradicted the emerging story.

This is only simple logic, and it's "perplexing" as to why you couldn't come up with it on your own...

 

(09-17-2016, 12:10 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  It is also possible that there was no earlier picture and than Moorman only took one picture.

Only by labeling the witnesses as liars or morons. You clearly disbelieve that the Sniper's Nest was in view on the photo.