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

So, there is a slew of problems with Bill Newman in the Moorman photo and the area that he is in. His arm is missing. His chest is jagged and partially missing, affording a completely misleading impression of his shape. He was a portly guy, not a sleek athletic guy with a 28 inch waist, as he appears in the photo. Plus, distortion exists over his face, neck, and shoulder. And below him, the motorcycle is so washed out as to look like a sketch, yet the motorcycle cop right in front of it looks fine. 

Let's enlarge this as much as we can. 

We have all been taking photographs all of our lives, and many of us, including me have been around Polaroids plenty. I don't recall that I ever owned a Polaroid, but friends and relatives of mine have. So, I have seen plenty, but I have never seen a development like this. 

So, what went on here? It is not a chemical mishap. It is a remodeling of the photo after someone was lifted; taken out.

Before I go further, I need to say that this is NOT my idea. This came from someone else, whose online name is Saintly Oswald. 
And apparently, he has been saying it for a long time. 

And, although I think it is very brilliant work, I must make clear that I am not in agreement with Saintly Oswald about everything. He claims some things which I do not support.  And that's true even in regard to this. For instance, I believe he still advocates that the woman in the scarf next to Featherston on Houston Street is Babushka Lady.

Babushka Lady wore a cream-colored scarf with a purple flower design, but the other woman seems to be wearing a darker scarf, all one shade, and a darker one. She also seems thinner than the Babushka Lady. She is also wearing glasses, unlike the Babuska Lady. And, how could she get to lower Elm in time when she had to wait until the motorcade passed before she could cross the street? Surely, she didn't dodge between the cars in the motorcade. So no, I don't think she could have gotten to lower Elm in time. 

But, in the video of Saintly Oswald's that I am going to post, he doesn't claim that, and he doesn't claim anything that I do not agree with. 

It was Saintly Oswald who introduced me to the idea that Babushka Lady took the Moorman photo. And, his Youtube video about it has been up for 2 years and has 140,000 views. 

But, I am going to provide the link to his follow-up video in which he explains the Bill Newman mystery. 

In a nutshell, Babushka Lady was shooting at the limo diagonally at at a time when she was behind Charles Brehm, a tall man. She had to shoot diagonally because she couldn't shoot through him. But, he was close enough to her that she caught his left shoulder in her camera field; it eclipsed her picture. 

So, unwittingly, unintentionally, because it was a rushed situation, her camera grabbed his left shoulder, like an artifact on the right side of her picture. 

The above graphic by Saintly Oswald shows how a piece of Brehm got captured, like an artifact, in the picture. Obviously, that could never have happened to Mary Moorman as she was not standing next to Brehm. So, leaving that in would have been a tell-tale sign that Mary didn't take the picture. So, they had to get rid of it. 

The above is just an approximation, a best guess. It may not have been exactly like that, but it was generally like that and close to that. 

And here again is the result when they took Brehm out.

Obviously, his arm is gone because his arm was never there in the photo, and they couldn't draw it in. How would that have looked? Better that it be missing. 

And note that this kind of retouching would be very easy to do today digitally.  Just as Oswald told authorities that he could have done the forgery of the Backyard photos, I'll tell you that I could have done this Brehm removal, and I essentially have done it. 

Someone asked me to remove some arms from a photo. The situation was that a very young child was being photographed sitting in a chair, but the child wasn't quite old enough yet to sit independently.  So, someone was behind the chair with her arms coming around the chair and her hands grabbing the child around the waist. So, in the picture, her arms looked like two straps coming out from the child. And she didn't like it. So, she asked me if I could remove her arms from the picture. So, I did it using Paint. 

They have a "Color Picker" in which you can pick a color from the picture, and then using various kinds of brushes I went over the area where her arms were, trying to match it to the background. And the result was pretty good. A close study would have revealed what I did, but not a quick look. You'd never know those arms were ever there.

Here is the link to Saintly Oswald's video about this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp0zSbew0-I

I congratulate Saintly Oswald for having found this. It was brilliant work, considering that people have been looking at the Moorman photo for half a century and  NOBODY EVEN NOTICED THAT BILL NEWMAN'S ARM IS MISSING, never mind all the other stuff. It just flew over the radar. 

But, this is not the first time such a thing has happened. The whole JFK "community" had looked at and talked about the image of Billy Lovelady outside the TSBD for decades, but it took KD Ruckman, a Canadian, to notice that the guy wasn't Lovelady.

 Only one guy, KD Ruckman, noticed what is actually a very obvious thing, that these two are different men with different anatomical features and a totally different postural alignment. 

They came up with this phony Lovelady on the right mainly to quash Harold Weisberg, who said that Lovelady had worn a short-sleeved striped shirt. His response to this was to point out that his shirt isn't splayed open like Doorman's.

So, how could they be the same man 15 minutes apart? And no, he didn't button up his shirt. No one has ever claimed that.  And, it was impossible because Doorman was Oswald, and his buttons were missing.  But, it would have been so sweet if Harold had told them that they could take their Gorilla Lovelady imposter and go straight to Hell with him because he isn't Doorman; he isn't Lovelady; and he wasn't there. It was utterly faked. Just like this Lovelady was faked:

Does that look like a 26 year old to you? To me, he looks like he could be the father of a 26 year old. Yet, he is supposed to be 26 year old Billy Lovelady. And just like this Lovelady was faked:

I guess Lovelady must have been hitting the gym heavy because that looks like an Olympian arm to me. And the way this Lovelady was faked:

Above, he looks totally bald and cherubic. And the way this Lovelady was faked:

This guy looks like a freak, like a cartoon character; he's not even photographic. It's all bull shit, so much bull shit, and this thing with Brehm and Newman in the Moorman photo is part of the bull shit. You have to understand that the JFK assassination is the most photographically altered event of all time, and it's likely that nothing else even comes close. 

In closing, I want to make it clear that I am not in any way badmouthing Mary Moorman. I think she is a lovely woman. I think she has been honest as the day is long since Day 1. And I am not disputing her legal and moral right to own the Moorman photo. And I am not asking that the name be changed. 

But think about this: You know they must have duplicated her photo that very afternoon. During the time that she was being questioned by law enforcement at the Sheriff's Office and then interviewed by the press, her photo was not in her hands. It had been taken away from her. There were several hours that it was in government hands. And, it would be very foolish to think that they didn't duplicate it during that time. They probably rushed it over to Jaggars/Chiles/Stovall who duplicated it immediately. But, at the end of the day, they returned it to her and let her go home with it. They never would have done that if they hadn't duplicated it because it was too important- to both the criminal investigation and to history. It was a highly historical photo. How could they send her home with it if it was the one and only? It was a photograph taken just a few feet away from JFK right when he was being shot and killed. So, they never would have let her go home with the one and only one. 

But, why did they have to storm her house at midnight that very night to retrieve it? They had their own. The print and the negative (which was made from the Polaroid) were surely in the vault. So, what did they need hers for? It's because they were going to change it. They were going to alter it. And to do that, they had to get the original back from her. Otherwise, there would have been two Moorman photos, in conflict with each other. And that would have been no good.