Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

Let's examine this image of Marguerite Oswald and look for signs of alteration. We'll start with her hair. You notice on top that it's parted, and the hair in that area looks natural and normal: the tone of it, the lay of it are OK; it looks like real hair. But, to our left, it suddenly gets very dark, and it really doesn't look like hair any more. It looks like somebody applied ink to the photograph. 

What could be causing that? If it is natural and innocent, then presumably it's shadow, right? But, what is the object that is casting the shadow? Surely, the rational among us will agree that it looks suspicious 

Presumably, her hair is covering her ear, which is why we aren't seeing her ear. At least, we are not seeing most of it. But, that hair over her ear doesn't look like hair at all either. 

Let's try flooding the image with light to see if it reveals anything:

What is that crescent-shaped object above her ear? Could it be part of the ear of the real woman who was there before the face swap was done?

Now let's go in closer:

This brings out the pastiness of the face in contrast to the neck. Her face looks like a ghost, doesn't she? Look at her coloring compared to the boys:

Notice that her face looks distinctly white compared to each of the faces of the three boys. 

I know for a fact that they posted the face of the short dumpy Marguerite over that of the tall, elegant, statuesque Marguerite who was the real mother of the three boys. Here is a picture of her with Lee.

The above picture was taken in 1948, so Lee would have been 9 years old- except that that's not the Lee Harvey Oswald we know. Our Lee was NEVER as thick and husky and full-bodied as that. Our Lee was SCRAWNY. He was scrawny as an adult, and he was scrawny as a child. Here's an image of him that was reportedly taken at the Bronx Zoo. 

Above, he was older than 9, but still, it may be the closest comparison we have.

The boy on the right was at least 4 years older than the boy on the left. Maybe as much as 5 years later because Lee was at least 13 on the right and may have been 14. But, he definitely looks lean and scrawny compared to the younger boy. You could take the attitude that he just slimmed down, but that would be an arbitrary assumption. We're talking growth here: adolescent growth. And usually, growth means getting bigger, fuller, more filled out. How likely is it that Lee went in the opposite direction? The Lee we know NEVER had that husky, well-fed look like the boy on the left. That kid was the other Lee, the one who grew to be 5'11 and had a bull neck. Read John Armstrong.