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

The JFK motorcade films have something in common. The only one that shows JFK graphically being shot is the Zapruder film, and that shows only one shot, the fatal head shot; and not any of the other shots. The other films either don't show anything or they offer something very obscure.  

I find it strange that just one film displayed the true gore of the assassination. 

We'll start with the Zapruder film. The centerpiece of it is the freeway sign, and it isn't real. The real one is on the right.

So, in the Zapruder film, the sign is too big, and it is angled wrong. It is turned towards the road, instead of being perpendicular to it, as you can see on the right. But, that's not all. It's also too high on the hill. You can see that the fort across the street is closer to it than it should be. Those people lined up at the top of the image were on Houston Street, and the sign wasn't that close to Houston Street. I can explain what they did. They wanted to hide the fact that JFK was shot in the back high on the hill, and he rode down the hill that way, reacting to that one shot. They wanted to make it that he wasn't shot in the back until he reached the sign, and then he was shot in the back, and it exited his throat. That's not what happened. They were two separate shots, and the back shot came first. So, in order to tell their story, they had to shorten the distance, so that it seemed like he wasn't shot until he was behind the sign. 

However, if you look closely at the Zapruder film, you can see that JFK was shot before he got to the sign. 

 

You can see that Jackie is turned and looking at him. The back of her pill box hat is pointed to our right, and her bangs in front are left of that. So, she is looking at him. And his face is smudged out. It looks like he has his hand over his face. He didn't do that. They did that- with paint. He must have had a distraught look on his face, and that was from being shot in the back. And he really was shot with an ice flechette that contained a toxic payload, including a nerve agent. So, the story of the Zapruder film, that JFK reached the sign fine and dandy; and then bad things happened behind the sign, isn't even true. The film, itself, tells us that he was shot before he reached the sign. Still, they used the phony sign to hide what really happened.  

But, they went about it differently with the Nix film. First, the quality of it is so crude and so poor, even for 1963. The Elm Street part of it is so sparse with the head shot that it's very easy to miss it completely. He's sitting there, all contracted, and then his head moves, but not violently towards Jackie, like in the Zapruder film. It's more that the image of his head falls apart. Jackie never has to dodge his head, as she does in the Zapruder film. And then, she starts climbing on the back of the limo. If you want to say that this is the head shot, I can't stop you, but it's nothing like the Zapruder film. 

And why would Orville Nix start filming at that late point? Why wasn't he filming on Elm Street before that? And notice that you don't even see Mary Moorman in that frame. Supposedly, she didn't take her picture until AFTER the fatal head shot. But, why Why WHY would she wait so long when she was poised to take her picture when the limo was at the top of the hill?  Let's look at Muchmore. 

In Muchmore, there is a puff of smoke, but his head doesn't move. It's nothing like the Zapruder film. It's so meager and so subtle that it's more like a token head shot than a real one. 

Considering how graphic the head shot is in the Zapruder film, why would the same head shot be so diminished here? 

Bronson is a waste of time because you don't see anything. 

It's after all the shots, and there is nothing discernible. So, Bronson didn't start until after the shots either. Uh-huh. 

The most memorable thing about the Hughes film is the Girl in Blue on the pedestal, Toni Glover. I don't believe she did it. And the story is that both she and her frumpy, middle-aged mother did it.- climbed that pedestal. Supposedly, her mother is standing in front of her. Think about it. Her mother was taller and wider. So, how could Toni see anything with her mother in front of her on that pedestal? Wouldn't it have made more sense for Toni to be in front and her mother behind?

So, why did they come up with that? It was because Oswald was standing in the middle of the doorway, and they had to cover him up. And what they did was put the Doorman right above Carl Jones.

Look at this collage, and start on the right, which is the Wiegman film. Notice that Doorman is in the center of the doorway. On the left, which is Hughes, he is huddled with Carl. He wasn't. That's fake. 

Weigman and HUghes were taken at the same time shooting the same thing. They may have done that because in the Altgens photo, Oswald seems to be next to the white column. But, that was due to the parallax effect from Altgens' angle. The fact is that the Doorman (Oswald) stood in the center of the doorway.  

And when it came to Elm Street, Hughes captured nothing. It was completely over by the time he got to it, and we see nothing. 

The most significant thing about the Mark Bell film is that it also shows Toni Glover, and in it, you can see her Mom in front of her quite well.

Again, it makes no sense. Toni in front with her mother's arms around her, securing her from behind- that would have made sense. But, Bell didn't catch anything from the shooting. By the time his camera got to it, the cars were speeding away. Oh well, another miss. 

Elsie Dorman didn't catch anything of the shooting. She was on the 4th floor of the TSBD, so why after shooting the limo coming down Houston didn't she follow it down Elm? There's no answer. But, she did catch Toni and her mother.

Does it look to you that Toni and her mother were standing on the pedestal? It doesn't to me. And they were very boisterous, and one would not be boisterous on that pedestal. I know because I have stood on that pedestal; several times; and it's scary. It's high and it's narrow. You don't feel safe, and you don't want to move around. You're not going to be all worked up like Toni and her mother in the Dorman film. On the right, it's Toni standing on the pedestal years later. Notice how much higher she is than the man on the sidewalk. Now look left again, and notice that Toni and her mother don't look any higher than the people on the curb.

The Wiegman film shows Oswald in the doorway. That is the most important thing about it. But, it shows nothing of the shooting. Since the press car was the 7th car in the motorcade, it was a ways behind, so it's not surprising that nothing was captured. And the same goes for the Darnell and Couch films, which were taken from the second press car, even farther back. So, they have nothing of the shooting either. 

The Martin film shows nothing of the shooting, even though it could have. The only significant thing about the Martin film is that when they came up with the phony footage of Lovelady outside the TSBD ten minutes after the shooting, they claimed it was from the Martin film. It was not. Look at the qualitative difference. 

Why would anyone believe that those two very disparate images were taken by the same camera?

The Daniel film was taken from beyond the Triple Underpass, so he caught nothing of the shooting. 

The Paschal film starts on Houston Street and then goes to the Triple Underpass with nothing in-between. She was on the 3rd floor of the Courthouse, so she easily could have captured all the action on Elm Street; every bit of it. And she probably did. But, the FBI saw to it that she didn't.  

The Jefferies film was taken 90 seconds before the motorcade reached Dealey Plaza, so it is not a film of the assassination. 

So, those are all the motorcade films, and none of them show any shots except for the Z-film showing the fatal head shot.  So, the story is that all the filmers missed all the action on Elm Street, even though most of them started on Houston Street. Are you buying it? And every one of the films was handled by the FBI. We have never seen anything that the feds didn't handle first. 

So, why am I pointing this out to you now? It's because it shows that the feds did not want us see what happened to JFK. And that tells you why they couldn't let us see Mary Moorman's real photo either. She caught JFK being shot, and she said so. But, that was off-limits. This is her standing in the street demonstrating how she took her picture. 

This was a few months later, the Spring of 1964. I don't know what that white object is in her hands, but she was using it to represent her camera. She was showing how she stood in the street, facing east, and that she photographed the Kennedys as they approached her- which made sense. She said she was particularly interested in getting their faces- which also made sense. So, how could she have wound up with the image on the right? She couldn't have. 

We didn't get to see any carnage in any of the motorcade films (except Zapruder). They made sure of that. And they weren't going to let us see Mary's photo either. So, why did they let us see the fatal head shot in the Zapruder film? I'll get to that, but it's a topic for another discussion.