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

This image was cropped; severely cropped.

Betzner had a very simple and very old Kodak box camera. It had very few adjustments, and it had a very wide angle. It certainly was not the case that it couldn't capture the length of the limo from that distance. The photo was cropped. It was cropped on the left side because the TSBD doorway was there, and from this distance, you'd have seen an awful lot, including Oswald standing there in the doorway, plain as day. And the right side was cropped just for balance, just to hide the fact that the left side had been cropped. After all, if there was coverage of the field to the right of the limo, but the left side of the limo was cut off (as it is), then the viewer would wonder why the photographer centered the photo that way. Why didn't he turn left a little bit to include the whole limo? So, by cropping the back of the limo the same as the front, it makes it look balanced and symmetrical. But again, it's ridiculous to think that that is all the camera captured.

I'm pretty sure that is Tina Towner and her mother and father in front of Betzner. And he was way behind them. He was practically on the grass.

JFK's limo was on the other side of Elm, the north side. You can see Betzner; you can see his camera; you can practically see the angle of view of his camera.

Here is how a camera's angle of view is depicted on Wikipedia.

So, let's approximate that:

You know darn well that from where he was standing, he would have had no trouble capturing the full length of the limo.

They cropped that image. They severely cropped that image. And the only reason they could have done it was to cut out the TSBD doorway. 

But, it raises an interesting question: what if there was somebody else with a camera who took a similar picture, and he wasn't noticed, so that nobody asked him for his camera. He developed the picture himself and saw Oswald standing in the doorway plain as day. But, by then, he realizes that authorities do not want to see his picture, that he might be endangering himself and his family by turning it in. So, he buries it. He puts it in safe keeping, but he keeps it to himself. Just his wife knows. But then when his kids grow up, he tells them, and it becomes a family secret. If he was a young man at the time, he could easily be alive today. And if not, his kids would be alive. And either he or they could hear about the OIC and what we're doing, and so either he or they decide to send the photograph to me, either anonymously or by name. And then we have an image of Oswald in the doorway that no one could possibly deny, where it's as plain and distinct an image of him as any of the others that we have.  

What are you going to say then, Backes? Oh, I'm sure you'll think of something. I'm sure you're not going to say: 

"Well, I guess you were right all along, Cinque. No harm, no foul."

No, you wouldn't say that like a good sport, and frankly, I wouldn't take it like a good sport. No, no, no. It's too late for that. 

But, my guess is that that's when you would finally come around to recognizing photographic alteration in the JFK assassination. You'd say it was a fake.  You'd say it even if there were no basis for saying it. 

I realize there is very little chance of such a thing happening, but it's not completely out of the realm of possibility. I don't know what the mathematical odds are, but I'm sure they are better than the odds of winning the lottery.  A lot better than that.