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

I have done some editing of the research report about the recent photographic experiment in Dealey Plaza, so I am posting it again.

It was very successful because I confirmed that the lone right arm of BJ Martin in the Moorman photo is bogus. It could not have been captured from the diagonal angle at which the Moorman photo was taken. 

NEW PHOTOGRAPHIC RESEARCH PROVES MOORMAN PHOTO FRAUD

By Ralph C. Cinque

I went to Dealey Plaza to do my own reproduction of the Moorman photo, but with only one figure represented: Officer BJ Martin, the motorcycle cop.  His lone right arm in the lower right corner of the photo has always troubled me. I dispute the legitimacy of it. 

The first step was to recreate the field of the Moorman photo. The camera was stationary on a tripod at a height of 54 inches. It was at Mary's location on south Elm, across from the pergola, just a little east of Zapruder's position on the pedestal. We set it down on the grass, a foot and a half from the curb.

I am quite satisfied with that approximation. Here they are stacked:

I think that's pretty good. Note that in order to capture that view, I had to turn myself and the camera about 18 degrees to the left (counterclockwise). It has been mathematically and scientifically proven that the Moorman photo was taken at that angle. It was shot on a diagonal. 

However, Mary Moorman has never said that she took her picture on a diagonal, and she has never demonstrated it that way.

In demonstrating it, Mary has always pointed her camera dead-on straight ahead.

Fact: Mary Moorman said that she took her photo when the Kennedys were "even" with her. Even. That's the word she used. It was also the word that Jean Hill, her companion, used. 

The Moorman photo was taken on a diagonal, but none of the assassination films show Mary standing at a diagonal to Elm Street- not at any time. In all of them, she appears to be standing perpendicular to Elm Street. 

Now, let's look at the results. In all these images, the "motorcycle" was placed 45 inches from the curb, and the height of the handgrips was 40 inches above the ground, measurements which correspond to the conditions at the time. Adjustments were made by inching the rider forward or back. We did not change anything with the camera. It was on the tripod, turned to the proper angle, and we left it like that. 

   

So, we set up the camera field, and then we manipulated the position of the bike and rider as he was entering the field from the east side. We found that there was a lot of leverage involved; an inch would make a big difference.

We also took some images with Mary standing in the street, for the sake of those who believe that she did that. But, I dismiss it just from trying it. The lane isn't that wide, and with two motorcycle cops filling it up, it was way too small a space to have Mary there as well. They would have passed her way too close for comfort, and I mean her comfort. Instinctively, Mary would have gotten out of the street. She wasn't a photo-journalist or paparazzo, and it would have been very brazen for her to remain there- with so much traffic. But, here are the results from the street, and you'll notice how the bike appears larger for being closer to the camera. 

So, neither from the grass nor from the street did we capture just the right arm, as seen in the Moorman photo. But then, we did something radical: we assumed that Mary did what she said she did, which was to photograph the Kennedys facing them directly, where she was perpendicular to Elm Street. Just a straight-on shot that was not diagonal. Notice how different the background looks. 

Wahlah! Shooting perpendicular, we did catch the right arm first. We found that it was quite easy to capture the right arm alone when shooting perpendicular. So, it is feasible and doable when you are facing the street squarely at 90 degrees. But, whoever took the Moorman photo was not facing the street at 90 degrees. She was turned to her left and shooting on a diagonal, and there is no doubt about it. But notice that, in this case, the lone right arm is higher in the image. The hand is not at the bottom of the image as it is in the Moorman photo. 

So, that's a difference in itself. A lot more of the bike was captured, and a lot less of the arm. But, no one can claim that the Moorman photo was taken this way. Look how different the backgrounds are.

So, that photo does not vindicate the lone right arm in the Moorman photo. They were shot from different angles. So, it doesn't count. 

I'll point out that the clam-hand we see in the Moorman photo is not anatomically correct. On the left is BJ Martin; that's his right hand. And you'll notice that most of his right hand was out of view to Mary. It was going the other way. If his right hand was visible to her at all, it was mainly just his thumb coming down from the web. So, what is that massive thing we see in the Moorman photo?

That can't be his thumb because it wasn't that big. 

The explanation is that it's bogus. The lone right arm of BJ Martin in the Moorman photo is a bogus image. They added it to the photo to make it look like Mary's photo, which was taken from the perpendicular. 

I didn't publish this image yesterday because I didn't want to expose the person who was helping me. But, now I have blackened out his face, so it's OK. 

Notice how large my subject looms as he enters the camera field, and it's because he's so close to the camera. BJ Martin was just as close. And realize that our tripod was where Mary was and set to her camera height.

So, because of his closeness to her camera, he is filling up the frame there on the right side, and yet, his bike hasn't advanced as far into the scene as BJ Martin's bike had. Look where Martin's windshield is. It's practically in the center of the picture. And yet, we still can't see him except for his right arm? Just compare these two images. 

That's a Dallas motorcycle cop on Elm Street less than a minute after the shooting. His left arm was captured, but I cropped it out. I post it to demonstrate the lengths involved. It's like BJ Martin in the Moorman photo was Rubber Band Man- all stretched out. 

In the Moorman photo, Hargis looms larger than Chaney. Why? It's because he was closer to the camera. Well, Martin was closer, much closer to the camera than Hargis. He should be looming large, just like my rider. 

The fact is that Martin's lone arm isn't big enough, considering how closely it supposedly was to the camera. His arm should have loomed much larger than that, considering his proximity to the lens. 

There is a Muchmore frame which corresponds to the Moorman photo, and you can see how well the Kennedys match.

You don't think there were two instants like that, do you? So, that must have been when the Moorman photo was taken. Here it is large:

The lady on the right, Babushka Lady, is taking the Moorman photo at that very moment. Everything is in place for it. The fact is that Marie Muchmore shot from an angle that was very close to Babushka Lady's. And what you see above is about what Babushka Lady captured. Here is how the "Moorman" photo must have looked before they messed with it.

They changed all that, converting two motorcycles and two motorcycle cops into one of each. It meant associating the front of Martin's bike with the rear of Hargis's. But, you can see the depth difference between the two. As my assistant said: that guy would have been riding into the curb if it were all one bike. And then they added the phony lone arm of Martin, so that he would be represented. A ton of alteration was done. But, they never could have gotten away with it without the help of that white thumbprint.

You don't actually believe that that thumbprint was an accident, do you? Say it isn't so. 

Finally, why did they do all this? I have to presume that Mary's photo- the one she actually took- must have showed something that was terribly revealing and ultra-damaging to the official story- the one they were telling. And I could only speculate as to what that was. I could try, but I would only be guessing.  

Remember, they kept going back and getting Mary's original, again and again. Why did they have to have that little Polaroid when, by then, they already had bigger and better copies? 

What was the reason? How many times did they have to look at it? Obviously, something was bothering them about it. There was undoubtedly some information, some data in it that they feared would give people the wrong idea, which is to say, the right idea, about what really happened.  

Fact: they needed her original back in case they chose to alter it. There is no other reason why they would have needed it back. 

Notice: I claim my inherent copyright and ownership of the images I produced. They are not to be reposted or reproduced without my express written permission. You can request permission by writing me at: oswaldinnocent@yahoo.com.