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

So, let's see where we are:

First, according to the Stupid Backass, the problem was that I was comparing the Moorman photo to the Polaroids from the 1970s and 1980s. How many times did he write 1970s and 1980s? 

But, then I produced Polaroids from the 1950s which definitely showed normal hands that were in focus:

So now, he's not spouting 1970s, 1980s, any more. It's like he never said it. Instead, he's trying other stuff. Let's analyze:

First, he plays the motion card, but it so happens that the Moorman photo was taken at the time that that the limo had stopped- or nearly stopped. There were a lot of people who said that it actually stopped, as in "came to a complete stop." Senator Ralph Yarborough was one of them.  But, if it was moving at all, it was going very slowly, as in 2 or 3 miles per hour. Remember, it was going so slow that Jean Hill could talk to JFK, as in: 

"Mr. President! Look this way! "We want to take your picture."

How slow does a car have to be going to be able to say that to an occupant of the car, expect him to hear you, and adjust what he's doing, and then for somebody else take his picture?

So, you can't play the motion card, Backes. You're not holding it in your hand. One thing we do know is that at that moment, Kennedy's head was slamming back and to the left. Yet, his head doesn't look motion-blurred.

Furthermore, it's not that the "clam" looks blurred. It's that it's a clam. 

Further-again, the whole image of the clam and the motorcycle looks drawn. It has no depth. It looks like art; lousy art. Here's a real Dallas motorcycle cop.

 Look at the axis of the handlebar. 

The hand was lateral to the windshield because the handlebar went out diagonally. But, in the Moorman photo, the clam looks medial to the windshield. The clam should have had greater depth than the windshield instead it has none. There is a complete absence of the proper orientation. It's just a crude, fake, drawn image. 

As far as enlarging goes, I did no more enlarging for one than the other:

So, you can't play the enlarging card either, Backes. 

Finally, Backes resorts to a potpourri of excuses, such as, the temperature of the safe in which it was stored, how many times it was handled, (as if people don't know enough to handle the photo around the edges) and whether the photographer was having a bad hair day. 

But, does Backes admit that he was wrong about the 1970s/1980s bull shit? No! Because he's stupid, and being stupid means never having to say you're wrong.

And why the hell did it have to be handled and looked at by so many different people and so many times? What the hell were they looking at? It must have been something disturbing to them, concerning to them, worrying to them. But, it isn't anything in the Moorman photo today. So, it must have been something other than what we are seeing today. And they went beyond altering it. They replaced the whole damn thing! They got rid of it! And what they did to mangle the other photo into form required topping it off with a thumbprint:

Thumbs don't leave white marks on stable photographs, including Polaroids. I said: Thumbs don't leave white marks on stable photographs, including Polaroids.