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

Houston Street is quite different now, which is hardly unexpected after 51 years.  It would still be possible to do it by holding up a carefully placed prop for the road sign. 

But, here's what we're left with. We're left with a film in which Toni Glover just happens to be blocking the visibility of the Doorway Man as seen in Wiegman and in Altgens. Remember that Altgens, it only looks like Doorman is next to the west wall. He wasn't. He was in the exact same spot as he was in Wiegman: the center. And, he absolutely has to be because it isn't even theoretically possible that he moved between Altgens and Wiegman. Or is it Wiegman and Altgens? It's hard to say because they were so very close in time.

So, we have a film in which Toni Glover is blocking the view of Doorman, and yet there is also a bogus Doorman hovering above Carl Jones. 

So, the question is: was it just by chance that Toni Glover is blocking the view of Doorman? And is it just by chance that the street signs are blocking the view of the east side of the doorway? I'd be more inclined to believe it if they hadn't put that bogus Doorman in there. But, they did put that bogus Doorman in there. And, they also put that bogus Lovelady in there, which followed.

Somebody actually was stupid enough to photoshop a distorted image.

  That image has been around for a long time. Even back on the Lancer forum, they were spouting that image as being a valid image of Lovelady. I used to wonder; how did his plaid shirt come out so geometric, with large blocks of color and vastly different from a checkered pattern? I didn't realize it at the time, but the reason is that it is an unstable image, and there is nothing real about it. In fact, it is so bad, it doesn't even look photographic. It looks like art. And yet, somebody put a big yellow arrow to say, "You see. There's Lovelady. So, all's well."

Well, all is not well. The Hughes film, like so many others, is highly corrupted and deliberately falsified. The JFK assassination involved a frenzy of photographic and film alteration that started immediately (beforehand actually) and continued for years, even decades. It is the most photographically altered event in the history of Man.

So, don't waste your time trying to defend the Hughes film. It is indefensible. It is dirty. Filthy dirty. Bloody dirty.