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

No, Backes. We can see how black skin looks in the image because we have the face of Roy Lewis. How can you claim that the mottled, splotchy look of that shirt was the skin of another black man?

The correct way to interpret this image is to recognize that the form of Roy Lewis is bogus. They stuck him in there, photographically.

And we know that because we have the Wiegman film, the beginning of which corresponds very closely with the Altgens photo. They are so close in time that people argue about which came first, by a second or so. And you can see that Roy Lewis was facing the other way.

Might as well call that Altgens II, and you can see where Roy Lewis was and how he was. And look how massive he was. How could that guy's huge torso be visualized as the partial shamrock we see in Altgens?

Forget it, Backes. If you are going to just accept the validity of the images and not even consider photographic alteration in the understanding of them, then you are going to be mired in confusion and misinterpretation forever. Roy Lewis was largely out of view to Altgens. And that has been demonstrated graphically. 

And don't tell me that Roy Lewis moved. There was no time for that because they were taken almost simultaneously. Furthermore, 4 seconds afterwards, Roy Lewis was still in the same spot facing the same way.

You see? That was 4 seconds later, and Roy Lewis was still there, next to the west wall, his hand on the molding, and his face turned and facing west, not east. What, are you going to assume that he reoriented himself for a split-second just in time with the Altgens photo? That is arbitrary and capricious, Backes, and you don't want to be like that. Roy Lewis was just as we see him above, and what we see of him in the Altgens photo is photographic fakery. Deal with it.