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

Why would Mary Moorman do it that way, Hondo? He is now suggesting that her body was facing Elm but in order to take the picture, she turned her face and arms, torqued herself, instead of picking up her feet and reorienting her whole body. But, why do that? It's not that hard to move your feet. Why not scoot your feet around so that they are oriented properly as well? I would. Wouldn't you? Isn't it easier and more comfortable to reorient your whole self rather than twist your upper body into a torque? 

Ralph is too much an idiot to realize that anyone can be standing with their body square to a given object and simply twist their upper torso while looking through the viewfinder of a camera and take a picture of something to their lef

Plus, it's a photo. for which you need to be relaxed when you take it. The more stable, the more balanced, the more centered, the more comfortable you are, the better it is likely to come out. So, I really think she would have turned completely. 

But, if you want to claim this, you need to provide the image of her torqued like that. That's what we are talking about: torquing. So, let's see the image of Mary Moorman torqued. 

You do have one, don't you? Surely, you're not saying that since it's possible for her to have torqued that she must have torqued. 

I've got news for you: she didn't torque.

That's frame Z-310 of the Zapruder film, the frame before the fatal head shot. It's the last good look we get of Mary. She is obviously not torqued there. The Moorman photo corresponds to Z-315, which is 1/3 second later. Surely, you don't think she suddenly torqued in 1/3 second in order to take the picture. 

Here she is in Z-315, and she doesn't look torqued to me.

Hondo knows my contention, that the hairline of Young Lovelady was implanted over Doorman to Lovelady-ify him. 

That is definitely Billy Lovelady on the left from the 1950s, probably 1957. It is referred to as the "wedding picture" but it definitely was not his wedding because he didn't get married until 1961. Now, if one is going to claim that Doorman is also Lovelady, it would mean that his hair was exactly the same 6 years later, and not just in the hairline (when he was a rapidly balding young man) but in the length of the hair, the cut of the hair, the style of the hair, the lay of the hair, etc. It would mean that his hair was exactly the same 6 years later, as much so as if it was taken 2 seconds later. 

But think about it: he was balding rapidly. Roy Lewis, who is still alive, said that at the time Billy Lovelady's hair on top was mostly gone. But, even if that were not true (and it is true) hair fluctuates. The timing of haircuts fluctuates. The way hair gets cut fluctuates. 
My hair never looks exactly the same even over short periods. But 6 years?

Here are the last two images of me that Hondo put up:

  
My hair doesn't look exactly the same. Far from it. It's sticking up more on the left, for some reason. And that's over a much shorter period of time than this:

So, the problem is that this is TOO GOOD of a match, especially since we know that Lovelady was a rapidly balding young man. And look how his hair was just 3 months later. 

So, it's bull shit; their bull shit; and I had every right to get rid of it. 

But, the actual fact is that the enlargement on the right below wasn't based on that. Hondo isn't very observant.

The times that I have cut off the tops of the heads, I have cut off both. 

And again, I am not apologizing for it. But in this one:

I actually just enlarged the image on the right to get a better look at his eyes, the intensity of his eyes, his stare, and I was impressed with the match. So, this one was about matching the eyes and not cutting out the hairlines, which as you can see is not cut out on the left.

Now, as for this guy below, I never claimed he was the same height as Mary Moorman, and he is obviously using a different camera. The only thing I am pointing out is his angle to Elm Street. 

And now, Hondo, you're just getting stupid with a thud. I know no one was directly behind Mary taking her picture the way someone was behind this guy taking his picture, that any picture we have of Mary is from a different angle. But don't worry: we can extrapolate. And we can still tell whether she is turned diagonally towards Elm Street like this guy or facing Elm Street directly, which is to say, squarely, perpendicularly. 

So now, let's see that image of Mary torqued. You said that anyone "can" do it, but do you have any basis to claim that she did it? There is only one basis to claim it, and that is an image of her doing it. So, let's see the image.