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

Without actually saying that the Zapruder film was altered, Backes intimates that it was, and he adds that, "nobody ever said it was altered to affect the Moorman photo." 

Most say that the Zapruder film was altered to hide the slowing and stopping of the limo. And whether they consciously did something to it to try to legitimize the Moorman doesn't matter. The fact is that in the Zapruder film, MARY MOORMAN IS DISASSOCIATED FROM THE KENNEDYS. That is an undeniable fact. Here she is taking her picture at a time that the Kennedys had already passed her, and SHE IS NOT EVEN POINTING HER CAMERA AT THEM.

 In the above frame, she is pointing her camera straight ahead; NOT at the Kennedys, who have passed her. So, who is she in the midst of photographing because it isn't them? This is a bizarre frame. It isn't the real world. It isn't what really happened. Mary didn't do that. Mary didn't do that. And that's just Z309. By Z315 when the Moorman photo was taken, she is STILL in the very same position doing the very same thing. She is frozen. MARY MOORMAN IS FROZEN IN THE ZAPRUDER FILM. From about Z300 on, she is frozen. She doesn't change; she doesn't move. She's like a mannequin in a clothing store; frozen. It isn't real. 

And no, Backes: the Moorman photo did not capture Martin's right hand. That was faked. You act like you live in a universe in which photographic alteration doesn't exist. I already told you that if you espouse Oswald's innocence that you MUST admit Backyard photo alteration:

You HAVE to admit that it was faked, Backes. If you don't, it might as well be you shooting at Kennedy.

You need to address it, Backes. You need to state your position on the Backyard photo. Do you, or do you not, admit that it is fake? Do you, or do you not, admit that that is not Oswald standing there with the murder weapon, which you must admit if you maintain his innocence? 

But, you haven't addressed it, and I expect that you won't. And, it's because you aren't and never have been a real Oswald defender. 

"He makes a claim that DPD motorcycle officer Martin and Hargis were blended together for some reason and gives no rhyme or reason why this would be so."

No, Backes. That is not what I say. I say that they were photographically juxtaposed in the original picture, the way it originally was before it was altered. They were separated in the revision, and the reason was TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE THE PICTURE WAS TAKEN FROM MARY MOORMAN'S PERSPECTIVE. That's a far cry from what you said. You're such an idiot.

Then, get this: the Idiot Backes walks a tightrope about Beverly Oliver. He acts like he doesn't know or care if she was Babushka Lady or not. There is an excellent video by Denis Morrisette that proves beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt that she wasn't Babushka Lady, and here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVdjbDIB7_8

Now, if you watch that thing, and your IQ is anywhere near triple digits, you are going to know, beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt, that Beverly Oliver was NOT Babushka Lady.

But, we have the Idiot saying this:

"If you believe Beverly Oliver is the Babushka Lady she has a story of how her film was taken.  It doesn't matter who you think the Babushka Lady is, whether she's  Beverly Oliver or not..."

You're just a stupid idiot, Backes. 

And no, I didn't say that Mary Muchmore's angle was exactly the same as Babushka Lady's, but they were a hell of a lot closer than eithers was to Mary Moorman's angle. Mary Moorman took her picture facing Elm Street squarely; she took it at a perpendicular angle to the Kennedys when they were directly in front of her, as she has always demonstrated.

It was a straight shot, squarely taken. She was at 90 degrees to the Kennedys. They were directly across from her. That is what she has always claimed. And that is obviously not the angle from which Babushka Lady or Marie Muchmore shot. They both shot from a diagonal. It wasn't the exact same diagonal, but it was close. 

And how can you say that Muchmore's and Babushka's weren't taken at the exact same moment? Muchmore took a film, so she captured all the moments. Babushka used a still camera, but whatever she took must have been while Marie Muchmore was also shooting. 

If you look closely at the Moorman photo, you can see Martin in it, the bulk of him:

There's a guy there, in front of Hargis, who is obscured by the deliberate thumbprint, and you'd have to be a real idiot to think that that was an accident. Do you get it that Mary denies that it happened when the photo was wet and developing? She said it happened after the FBI borrowed it, and not the first time they borrowed it but a subsequent time. She said that in 2013 during her long interview for the 50th anniversary. I don't know how many people caught it and registered on it as an "Oh wow" moment, but she denied that she or Jim Featherstone or anybody else did it while the photo was wet and developing. She even made a joke about it, saying that the FBI didn't even tell her the name of the person who did it, so she doesn't know who to thank. How does pressing your thumb into a dry Polaroid do that? It doesn't. It was done on purpose, and the purpose was to TAKE BJ MARTIN OUT OF THE MOORMAN PHOTO. This indeed is how the so-called Moorman photo must have looked when it came out of Babushka Lady's camera.