Mary Moorman Tells Story

[Davyjones]

Thanks Wayne,thats clear enough then,the new roll pics 1 and 2 are unexplained!Fortunatly Deborah is on the case and I am sure she will post the results of her enquiry when she is ready.

[Wayne Stracener]

For Jim PhelpsJim, I noticed your posting on the Ed. and the center of attention there and on other forums is centered on Mary's early statements compared to her most recent interview, There is not much focus placed on the camera aspects, Which brings me to my point. I submitted a question to Gary Stover two weeks B4 the interview. It was the first in depth camera question ask to Mary in the first 5mins. of the interview. The retrofit seal kit is needed to use type #37 asa3000 film, To give Gary credit he even went as far as placing one on the 80a camera and asked mary if she knew what this was and pointed to it, Mary did not know, she called it the shutter button which is nowhere close. Everbody always mentions how good the quality of the moorman #4 is considering it was taken by an amateur,the type of camera,at a moving object,without using the light meter that comes with the camera. Most consider this a lucky shot. The retrofit seal kit was not supplied with the camera, She never mentions going to the department store and buying film and the retrofit kit which must be shown how to use and must be removed when not using asa3000 film. In the documentary TMWKK Mary is using her real camera and there is no seal kit on the camera, Which means it was either removed ( Then she had to know what it is ) or she never had one. So if it was a lucky shot by an amateur it was one in a million because here's how important the retrofit seal kit is.

[Wayne Stracener]

Jim if there is a problem reading the attachments let me know so I can email them to you

[Bob]

EXCELLENT information Wayne. Thanks!

[Dealey Joe]

Wayne what picture quality could be expected with this setup?How do you think she may have come by the x ray quality film?would this be available normally.

[Wayne Stracener]

Thank you Bob, The aspects of the Moorman polaroid is something I'm always into, I've talked to antique camera buffs, joined camera clubs, bought a 80a to study it ( Their cheaper than dirt since they do not make film for them any more ) but they can be modified.Dealey Joe, asa 3000 was suppose to be sold to professionals at first till advances in the cameras would catch up. Type #37 was highly sensitive, The 80a camera had light leaks and unless they were sealed the leaks would wash out known as fogging the photo being taken, The window that shows the shutter settings leaked and needed a seal and the lens board leaked and needed the shutter bonnet ( see photo ) it is a grey plastic curved piece. then you need to use a neutral density filter to make the film speed more manageable in daylight, This is way to much for amateur photography, With polaroid it was sell sell sell, drug stores,department store's,service stations,grocery stores. A lot these places had part time help,teenagers,students etc. These places did not offer any training at the glass counter. the knowledge was at the camera stores, Joe you could not load this film in daylight, Shade possible,under a coat or cover even better, But with all the seals and density lens in place this 10sec film at asa3000 took fantastic photos.

[Dealey Joe]

My experience with early Polaroid was that the picture quality was terrible.I did not have the same camera Mary had but the pictures look the same.Pull the picture out of the camera then open a small smelly tube with a foam applicator and coat the picture with some sort of preservative. I think eventually they done away with the coating process. Seems like I remember the rollers always getting the sticky goo on them and had to be cleaned often.

[Davyjones]

I have watched her interview again!She says the photos all had a number on.She says she only took 5 snaps that day.Mary Ann MUST be wrong about that.There are 2 snaps she must have taken which she is not admitting.I refer to pic1 and 2 on the new roll.Jean Hill it was mentioned,says she took more pics.Why is Mary Ann holding out on this?Mary Ann swore on oath 23/11/63 she heard 3 or 4 shots. 47 years later she declares firmly only 3!The interview she has given has backfired on her, her status as a reliable witness is ,in my opinion,in shreds.As Phil Dragoo might put it "Mary was there" which is about the only thing that one can say holds up as true.

[kenmurray]

Davy it would not surprise me in the least that Mary has been "coached" in to changing her story. Now who do you think would do that?

[Dealey Joe]

The whole deal was a scam to get money.She may have done that in a different way than she thought.She may also not wake up one morning.My gues if she actually had anything she or it would already be gone.