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

So, does anyone want to defend the Dracula coat of Mary?

And I am not saying she actually wore a Dracula coat, or that there was anything wrong with the coat she wore. I'm saying that the image of her coat was altered to turn it into a curtain.

Also, since that is claimed to be the frame that corresponds to the Moorman photo, how can it be if she is not holding a camera up to her eye there? 

And how, in the name of Pete, could she have been poised to take her photo from the moment the Kennedys rounded the turn at the top of Elm, but put it off until they were well past her?

Let's be crystal: nobody would do that. And when I say nobody would do it, I mean: not 1 of the 6 billion+ people on Earth would ever do that. But again: how could she have even theoretically done it without holding her camera up to her eye? She is obviously not doing that there, and it's because she already took her picture. 

I think they were determined to keep BJ Martin's head out of this frame and to only show very little of him. That's because there is so very little of him that shows in the Moorman photo. They were trying to match it- as best they could. 

Someone contacted me and said that even Gayle Nix Jackson admits that her grandfather's film was altered, and she wrote about it in her book.  I appreciate knowing that. 

But, this is just one more in a whole long series of altered films and images in the JFK assassination. It is the most photographically altered event of all time- in case you didn't know it.