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

This is a useful image. 

I want you to observe the effect of JFK being closer to the camera than his wife. His head looks a lot bigger. His hand looks a lot bigger too, and I'm sure it was, but I'm saying that it's being magnified by the perspective of the camera. More distant objects look smaller. Right? It's as true of people in cars as it is of stars in the sky. And you might also notice that his forearm looks bigger than hers too. 

And again, I know it WAS, in fact, bigger, He was a man; she was a woman. I get it! But realize that it is a compounding thing. In other words. both issues: his greater physical size and the fact that he was closer to the camera were both making him look larger in the picture. He was, in fact, larger, and he got an advantage from being closer to the camera which added to it. 

So, her being physically smaller than him, and her being farther away from the camera than him accounts for the disparity in size. It's a compound thing. It's additive- in this case. 

Well, with that in mind, why don't we see it here?

  
She is smaller than he is. Her forearm was smaller. Quite a lot smaller, right? She was a petite, delicate woman, was she not? Likewise, his right forearm is hanging over the right side of the car, while her left forearm is hanging over the left side of the car. So, their two appendages couldn't be farther apart within the confines of the back seat of that car. So, we are talking about the maximum difference in perspective here. Plus, in the top picture, she is facing JFK, and her forearm is going his direction. So, their two forearms are closer together in the top picture and farther apart in this one. So, there is a greater perspective difference here.  

So, why aren't we see it here? Why is her forearm so big if it is hanging over the left side of the car?