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

Another ridiculous Backesism: 

"This insistence that the Moorman photograph was shot on the perpendicular is just nonsense." 

No, Backes. I'm NOT saying it was shot on the perpendicular. I'm saying that it was shot on a diagonal from the southeast. 

That is a film frame of Babushka Lady taking the Moorman photo on a diagonal. And, I have been saying that repeatedly for over one year. 

Then, he confuses two separate issues: whether the camera is centered on the subject AND whether the camera is being held level. He says that unless you use a tripod, that the chances of the camera being off center are large. No, Backes, the tripod has nothing to do with that. The tripod holds the camera level, and it also keeps it from moving when you press the shutter. But, it has nothing to do with the centering.

God, you're such an idiot. 

And what I said, Backes is that if the Moorman photo was taken with the photographer facing Elm Street squarely (being perpendicular) that the line of the limo would be parallel with the bottom of the picture. But, it's not.

And that's what tells us that the above photo was taken on a diagonal. 

And, I have only talked about this issue of perpendicular in relation to the Moorman photo. I never raised the issue concerning Zapruder and his film. So, what are you raising it for?

Then, Backes has the audacity to claim that he has the knowledge that Jean Hill was deliberately turned and facing her boyfriend, BJ Martin when JFK rode by. That is bull shit! Jean Hill wrote a book, The Last Dissenting Witness, and nowhere in it does she claim that she was looking at her boyfriend when the President rode by. I've listened to many of her interviews, and never did she say that at that moment, she was turned and looking at him, her boyfriend. 

So, where did he get it from? And think about it behaviorally. Regardless of how fond she was of her boyfriend, she could see him most any time. This was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see the President of the United States and his glamorous wife up close, and she decided to forego it to make eyes at her boyfriend? And what's ridiculous about it is that she's not only looking that way, but her whole body is turned that way. She could have left her body alone and just shifted her eyes to look at her boyfriend. Or, if necessary, she could have moved her eyes and turned her head a little. There was certainly no need to move and reorient her whole body. He wasn't that far away. 

And think about the story that goes along with it. She said, in her book, that as the President approached, she spoke to him. She said:

"Mr. President, look this way. We want to take your picture." 

So, she's talking to the President and say that while she's looking at her boyfriend? 

That is ridiculous. She never claimed that, and there is no reason to think she ever did that. Nobody would. Backes is just a fool; a lying fool.

And then, he puts up a frame from Nix where it appears that Elm Street is rising to the west. But, they messed with that film, and Nix complained about it. He said he never tilted the camera that much. And in Mary Moorman's case, she was standing there poised and ready, and there is no reason to think she couldn't take a picture properly. People do it all the time, including amateurs. 

The idea that Mary Moorman wouldn't have captured that accurately is ridiculous. There is no excuse for the lack of descent in the Moorman photo. 

Backes, you're stupid. You were born stupid; you live stupid; and without a doubt, the last thing you say before Nature rids the world of your rotten presence will be something stupid.