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

Take a look at this. It is weird. There doesn't appear to be any Prayer Man figure nor any Frazier figure. 

It's a frame from the Darnell film that was broadcast on WBAP Television, which was the local NBC affiliate in Dallas/Ft. Worth. Today, it is known as KXAS. 

Here it is cropped:

But then, when you flood it with light, you get this:

But, go back to the unlightened one:

OK, that white thing in the shape of a football is supposed to be the torso of Frazier. But, look at the angle of it. He was a man, right? And he was standing up straight, right? So, how could he stand like that? How and why was he leaning backward like that?

And there is person in front of him on the steps, right? But where is that person's head?

And he must have been extremely tall. But, where is his head? His head is missing. He's in front of the Frazier figure, so he should be obstructing the Frazier figure, not vice versa. So, where is his head?

What about the woman next to Frazier on our right? Look at the width of her shoulders.

Isn't that a bit much? Doesn't it boggle your mind? 

But, it gets worse. First, look at the empty doorway.

This was taken from the opposite angle, but still, you get the idea that the median handrail and the medial ceiling light were both lined up in the center of the doorway.

Here's another photo. Look at the ceiling light above the top landing of the doorway in relation to the median handrail.

There are two ceiling lights, one inside and the other outside. The inside one is on and the outside one is off. But, they are both in the center as is the handrail. Right? Now go back to Prayer Man:

How can that be right? The direction of the handrail has got to be going straight up, perpendicular to the glass wall behind it, right? 

So, how can this be right?

Here's another photo of the doorway:

So, that works. I get the gist of that. It's shot at an angle from the west side. The handrail is going up the center; the lights are in line with it; everything is sympatico. It all works.  

Again, look at this one:

The plane of the rail is going up the center and meeting the plane of the lights. It all works. But this?

It seems like we are looking at the handrail pretty darn squarely, meaning that the photographer was shooting from directly in front of it. The handrail is about parallel with the vertical columns. Look, go back to the image below. Can you see that the plane of the handrail is NOT vertical. It is not parallel with the vertical columns. That tells you that we are looking at it from an angle. The photographer was west of it shooting at an angle.  

But, in the photo below, the handrail is almost parallel with the vertical columns, which suggests that it was shot more straight ahead. 

Go back now to the other, and notice that the open side of the doorway, which is the east side, takes up more space.

OK, so we have an open side of the doorway, which in this case is the east side, and we have a cut-off side of the doorway, which is the west side. The open side is long; the cut-off side is short. 

But, in the Darnell frame it's the opposite. The open side, where we can see the exposed wall, is the west side. But, it's also the short side. 

Look at it below, and keep in mind that open side should definitely be the long side.

Why is the long side, by which I mean the wider side, associated with the cut-off side? When something is cut-off, it means you're seeing less of it. Therefore, it should be associated with the narrow side. 

The bottom line is that this whole image is completely and totally fucked-up, photographically and optically. It is defying the known laws of physics and optics. I don't know how the hell they came up with it.