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

Ralph, 

What I'd like to know is..... 

Even if TIME Magazine *DID* "add an arm" to Jackie for a photo --- SO 
WHAT? Where does Ralph go with his argument even if it IS true (which it 
isn't, of course, but I'm just pretending it *could* be true for the sake 
of this argument)? 

It's a picture taken BEFORE the shooting of JFK. So why does it matter at 
all what was done to any photo OF JACKIE taken PRIOR to the assassination? 
There can't be any "assassins" to airbrush out of that picture. 

Does Ralph think TIME Magazine murdered JFK and then went around altering 
all the films and photos---even a picture of Jackie taken MILES away from 
Dealey Plaza?

David Von Pein


David, I couldn't agree more that there was no crime underway at the moment, and it has no bearing on the murder of JFK or on Oswald's innocence or guilt. 

But, it does show a willingness to alter photos, and not just alter photos, but to alter them drastically. And, it also shows a willingness to deceive the public, to play games with them, to pull sleight of hand tricks, and to treat them like children. 

This wasn't a forensic photo since it did not concern the crime, but it was a historical photo, and I don't think it's right to alter such photos. 

And the other thing I have to wonder if there was not an underlying message involved. 

 I don't think that line was an accident. It's like a plane taking off. And it's so in unison, it's like they are saluting, like these people:

So, not being a Nazi, I don't particularly like seeing this kind of thing. 

You said yourself, David, in one of your posts, that Jackie is looking straight ahead. So why, if she is looking straight ahead, would she have her arm out to her left with her hand externally rotated? If her eyes weren't looking that way, why would she be waving that way?

 Remember that her hand is supposed to be on the other side of the window. And it's not resting on the ledge because it's too high. She looks perfectly square in the seat, and she looks like she's facing straight ahead and looking straight ahead.  You said so yourself. Yet, her arm is sticking out to the left- a direction she WAS NOT LOOKING? Who do you think she was, St. Francis of Assisi?

That is very close to what they are claiming she was doing in the picture, though she was sitting, of course. 

Of course, it doesn't look that way at first glance. If you just saw it on a magazine rack or at an airport shop, you would think that she was waving her right arm, just like JFK.

Honestly, if you look at that from a distance, or if you just look at it without trying to analyze it the way I do, you would think that she is waving her right arm, just like JFK.  In fact, your mind would lead you to think that because you are getting such a powerful suggestion of it from JFK and because they seem to be so very much in tandem. But really what she is doing is a St. Francis of Assisi thing. 

And there are multiple problems with it. You know that like him, she must have her elbow bent since you can't see her upper arm. It's out of view, so theoretically, it's down at her left side. 

Well, in that case, all she has is the length of her forearm to get her hand to the window. But, would it reach?

This image here is the closest thing we have to what is purported to be happening in the disputed image. But, there are important differences. In the above picture, her arm is going left but so also are her head and body turned left. She is looking left. So, it makes sense. But imagine, if she were sitting neutrally and looking straight ahead. It would be a little odd. But then in addition, in the other picture she has her hand externally rotated- like St. Francis. And like St. Francis, she is holding her arm up. It's at the top of the window, and you can see there that when resting her hand on the ledge, her fingers do not reach the top of the window. 

So, presumably, she is sitting there, sitting squarely and looking straight ahead, but her left forearm is veering leftward even though she isn't looking that way. But, would it even reach? In the above picture, Jackie has her arm straightened. So the length of her arm and the length of her forearm are contributing to getting her hand to where it needs to go, which is to the outside of that window. Her entire hand is outside the window in the other pic because you can see the window frame in front of it. 

 It looks deceptively like a right hand because of that convenient "stripe" in the road filling in for a thumb. But, she has her hand externally rotated, which is to say rotated counter-clockwise. Well, that isn't even comfortable. It might be if she could put it down, but you can see the purple ledge there and her hand is above it. So, what the hell is going on? Even if she wanted to reach in that direction, she'd do it the normal way, where the dorsal side of the hand is more or less up and the palm side is down. That's the natural, neutral position of the hand. If you were going to just stick your hand out, that's what you would do. What reason would she have to externally rotate it like that? SHE'S NOT EVEN LOOKING THAT DIRECTION! She seems to be very focused on something straight ahead. And how is her forearm alone long enough to get there? You're not seeing any extension of the upper arm, as in this pic, which you provided:

 On the right, first note that her arm is leftward but so are her face adn eyes. But, look at how her upper arm contributed to getting her hand to where it was going. And it wasn't going as far. And notice that she is looking in the direction that her arm is going. She's not doing that St. Francis of Assisi thing as she is on the left.

I don't buy it. It's crap. It is an absolutely grotesque false image.