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

Backes, don't you EVER use this image of Oswald as an example of anything again. 

Oswald wasn't built like that. He was a very skinny guy.

There are so many things wrong with this image that I could write a book on it. 

I have told you before not to use that image. Don't do it again! 

Now regarding Oswald's arrangement when he was being led into the building, if his hands are cuffed behind him, it was definitely the standard way, like this:

His arms had to be mostly straight with only a slight bend in the elbow. It was not like as Steve Haydon demonstrated:

Notice how his elbows are jutting out and the line of his upper arm is diagonal. That looks uncomfortable. It is uncomfortable. And there is no reason to do it that way. The prisoner is just as secured with his arms down. 

Oswald's elbows can be no more than slightly bent. They are NOT bent like Haydon's. Therefore, this image below is bogus:

Some fool did this, thinking that it would pass muster. It doesn't. The cop's arm is hooked inside Oswald's arm, securing it. So, we see where Oswald's arm is, and where his elbow is, and where his forearm is. I'm telling you that Oswald was not led through that building with his arms in that painful position. This is fucking art, and it is terribly bad art. They painted that shirt on him.  

And they did it because they wanted to make it look continuous with the scene that came before, the one in which they synced it with another disparate scene. 

So, it went from shirt half-on to shirt fully on to shirt half-on again.

It was one film, Backes: Four Days in November. It was one film, but three disparate footages- three different clips- that were not associated with each other.  

And listen up, you stupid fool: I pointed to the disparity between these frames to demonstrate that they had to be different, unrelated clips, fraudulently strung together in a fake continuity. HOW COULD HIS SHIRT POSSIBLY GO OFF AND ON JUST FROM WALKING DOWN THE HALL? How could the man who is leading him change to someone else in a split-second? That was my point. Such things don't change in a snap, so they have to be different, unrelated clips. They have to be distinct from each other. 

Who brought the whole thing up? I did. It certainly wasn't you. Is it good for the David Wolper film to point out an inconsistency like that, that they did such a fucking devious and dastardly thing, obviously trying to create a false continuity which did not exist? Trying to make it look like one continuous flow, one continuous trek through the building?  And are you going to bring up such inconsistencies which make it look so phony and contrived and Machiavellian? No. That's my job. Your job as a blood-soaked Kennedy-killer is to defend all this shit. You have yet to admit to a single instance of photographic or film fraud in the JFK assassination. You claim that everything is lily white.  You claim that it was a fraud in which Oswald was framed, and that they even framed him for riding the bus and cab, but they never doctored a single image, that they never had to because every image supported their version of events even though it was a phony version of events. That's where your fucking brain is at. And Jack White is looking down at you from Heaven and shaking his head in disgust.