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

OK, let's get down to the nuts and bolts of the film fakery. They spliced together two different films to make the A Year Ago Today version of the Lovelady walk-by, and I have found the splice. Call this the Splice Collage: 

Notice first the times: 39:04 on the left and 39:05 on the right, which means that there was no more than one second between them. It was actually less than a second, a fraction of a second, but look at all the change. 

And remember that in this case, we are, supposedly, not comparing two different films. We are, supposedly, looking at one continuous piece of footage by one cameraman. So, here they can't blame any differences on two camermen- that's out.  

1) Notice that if it's the same camerman, he must have lowered the camera; he is holding it higher on the left and lower on the right. Notice how he captured all that blank wall above the books on the left but not on the right.    

2) He also changed the angle. Look how the top of the filing cabinets look perfectly horizontal on the left and diagonal on the right. 

3) The perspective has changed. Everything is slightly larger on the right, including Lovelady's head and the filing cabinets. The cameraman doesn't seem to be any closer, rather, it seems like he zoomed in. 

4) Yet, the big cop in back is the exception. His shoulder seems wider on the left and narrower on the right. Put a ruler to it. How do I account for it? Different men. 

5) We can't see the big cop in the white hat at all on the left, but we do see him on the right, and he is moving rightward. Did a fraction of a second produce that much change, or are they different films?

6) The man in front of the rear cop has changed his position a lot, and is he even the same man? 

What occurred between these two frames was the Curtain frame in which the rear cop blocked our view of everything.

This frame, obviously, does not convey any useful information. It is truly a curtain frame. But, the question is: was it necessary? Is there any reason why the cameraman should have been reduced to it? What happened? Was there no way for the cameraman to avoid it? Couldn't the cameraman have bore right a little bit to avoid the curtain effect? 

I maintain that they wanted the curtain effect because that is how they performed the bait and switch. It was no accident. It was done on purpose but not on 11/22/63. 

I'm telling you that this is a sleight of hand trick. These are two frames from two different movies that were spliced together to deceive. And it was done quite recently, definitely in the 21st century.  The notion that this is how the film played on 1/22/64 is preposterous.