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

Tim Brennan, a perennial Op from McAdams' forum, referred to the image on the left below, but all it does is show how phony the image on the right is.

Yes, the image on the left looks photographic. No part of it looks non-photographic, meaning, like noise. But, it doesn't explain the image on the right. It doesn't provide the photographic basis for why it came out as it did on the right.  

Look at the hairline on the left photo.

Yes, that looks like hair, and it shows a guy who has gone 2 or 3 weeks since his last haircut. But look on the other, which is trimmed a lot closer. 

Why should there be any difference in hair length? And what is that little flesh-colored thing at the bottom center of his hair?

Is that supposed to be an entry wound? Are they saying that was the entry wound for the fatal head shot? If not, what is it? It's obviously not the SBT shot. And why don't we see it in the other image? 

The area of jet blackness in the back wound photo is spurious and wrong, and it's not just the blackness itself that is wrong but the shape of the area that is black.  

What reason could there be, relating to lighting or anything else, for the photo to come out that way? It cannot be dismissed just because there is another photo which looks better.