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

Unger, what is wrong with you? Are you mentally ill? Are you senile? Are you strung out on drugs? I know Hargis' helmet was, in fact, spherical and appears so in all images except the Moorman photo. I'm not saying there was anything wrong with his helmet. 

I'm saying that the doctored (I should say butchered) Moorman photo shows his helmet un-round because of how sloppily it was altered.

Then, Unger displayed an outrageous colorized version of the Moorman photo that is so far from reality, it only confirms how sick and twisted the world of JFK assassination research really is. I refuse to put it up. I wouldn't want to show it the respect of visibility even to denounce it. But, I will say, publicly and outrightly, that it is nonsense; it is lunacy; and it is a lie: an evil, vicious, bloodied, despicable lie. 

You are the brother of the people did this, Unger: this filthy, unrestrained, unmitigated frenzy of photographic and film alteration that followed the JFK assassination in what is surely the most photographically altered event of all time. 

I have received word from OIC President Larry Rivera that he supports the recognition that BJ Martin was removed from the Moorman photo.

The one who lacks perspective is YOU. You put this frame up, and it does represent a close instant to the Moorman photo if not the very one.

 Notice that Mary Moorman is NOT taking a picture; she's just holding her camera. And notice also that BJ Martin's head is forward of Hargis' head in the context of the two-dimensional picture. In other words, it is left of it, which is to say forward. And, it would be even more forward from Babushka Lady's perspective. I shall add lines to show you what I mean.

So, in the picture, Martin's head is more leftward than that of Hargis. It had to be similar in the Moorman photo before it was butchered.

 When you look at this photo below, try to imagine how the thumbprint could be accidental, how it could be anything but deliberate:

Even if someone was going to grab it, say by pinching it between his thumb and index finger, they would do it squarely. How do you get a thumb angled off in that direction? Explain how it happens accidentally. Explain how pressing your thumb into a dry photograph leaves a mark like that. The thumb would have had to be extremely dirty, so why would anyone handle a historical photo at such a time? 

What I'm saying is that the claim of an accidental thumbprint is a disgrace; it is an insult to intelligence, that there is nothing remotely plausible about it. It is, in a word, statism: the belief that reality is whatever the Almighty State says it is. It is right out of George Orwell.