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

As we all know, closer objects appear larger, and more distant objects appear smaller. That's why in this image, his left arm appears larger, much larger, than his right arm.

Notice how his left arm looks bigger than his right arm. It's because his left arm is closer to the camera. 

Well obviously, the arms of a cyclist farther away would look smaller yet. If we're seeing that much difference in one guy, between his two arms, how much smaller would the arms of a guy on the other side of the road be? Well, go ahead and look because there is a guy, who is wearing white shorts and a dark shirt, on the other side of the street. Look how infinitesimal his visible arm is compared to that of my cyclist. 

So, it's a big difference, right? Well, it should be the same in the Moorman photo, right? Then let's compare the arm of Martin with the arm of Chaney.

 Wait a second. How could the right arm be captured so low on the right?

On the left, it's the left arm along the bottom of the picture; on the right, it's the right? How can that be? Height in the picture is a reflection of depth, of distance from the camera. How could Mary have captured so much of his right arm, when it's his left arm that would have been blown up, just as we see on the left? And don't point to this below, because it is just a cropped image.

He just used the zoom function to crop it:

 And even the above image was probably cropped to some extent with the zoom. But, Mary didn't have a zoom, and she was a very short person. You can see how high that guy's right arm is in the picture. 

 Not only is Martin's right arm much lower in the picture than bpete's right arm; it's even lower than his left arm. But, how is that possible? It's not. It's a bogus image. And even bpete's image shows it. 

But getting back to this:

How come so little difference in size between Martin's and Chaney's arms? Martin's looks a little bigger, but not nearly enough. Remember, being at the bottom of the picture as it is means that it was VERY close to the camera. Therefore, it should loom VERY large. 

Now, let's compare the size of Martin's arm to Hargis's:

What???? Hargis's arm looks bigger! No way! It's farther from the camera. If that's Hargis's arm, then Martin's should be looming much larger than it is. Look at the difference that occurred within one person:

Hargis was farther from the camera in TWO dimensions. He was farther in depth, that is going north, going across the street. And he was also farther from the camera going west, going down the street. Those two are additive. Not directly additive, but additive in the sense of the Pythagorean theorem: a squared plus b squared equals c squared.  

So, Martin's arm should appear MUCH larger in the picture than Hargis's. But, it doesn't.

That's impossible. Even bpete's subject showed a significant difference in arm size just from one arm being closer to the camera.

How can Hargis's arm be so large when it should be dwarfed by Martin's? 

Martin's arm should be much larger. Very much larger. It's fake. It's a fabrication. They added Martin's arm to the image without thinking about how large it should be for being that close to the camera.

The Moorman photo is a monstrosity; a grotesque photographic monstrosity. It is so far from being a natural photograph, it is a laughing stock.