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

We have heard the stories of the Towners, Orville Nix, Hugh Betzner, Phil Willis, and others of how someone in authority came up to them and demanded possession of their camera. Did any photo or film not wind up in government hands? None that I know of. In Mary Moorman's case, it was Jim Featherstone, who was a reporter, but he was really a proxy for authority, with close ties to the CIA. Obviously, this was planned in advance, to have agents there in Dealey Plaza to see who was taking pictures or shooting film and to confiscate their materials. 

Now, if they were that dogged and tenacious about amateur images, why wouldn't they be just as dogged and tenacious about seeing and controlling images taken by professional photographers who worked for the media? After all, the latter were creating images to show to the public at large, not just family and friends. 

So, of course, they would be, and of course they were. There must have been a system set up such that images, whether photographic or cinematic, taken by media cameramen were "reviewed" by national security agents before they were published in newspapers or shown on television. 

And think about that jail transfer of Oswald. The media was invited, yes. But obviously, there had to be more media outlets who wanted to be there than were. Was there any bigger story anywhere else in the country at the time? So, how did they pick and choose the ones who got a spot in that garage? Was it done on the basis of trust, inviting those with good track records of being reliable team players?  

Since authorities wanted to see the images taken by amateur photographers in Dealey Plaza, why wouldn't they have wanted to see the images of the Oswald shooting taken by professional photographers in the garage? 

And just as the Towners, and Phil Willis, and Hugh Betzner, etc. all cooperated, why wouldn't the photographers in the garage? 

I know about the so-called live footage, but if you are convinced, as I am, that the Oswald shooting was a planned spectacle, then why would they take the chance of actually showing it live? Wouldn't they have realized that it might go well, and then again, it might not? That to be safe, they better get a look at it before airing it? 

We know that Fred Rheinstein had a film-processing studio set up right there in the vans. That film could have been taken a bit earlier and then shown as live. When you look at it today, you see and hear the TODAY show host say, "To Dallas, Texas and Tom Pettit" and then immediately the trio come out the door. How could they cut it so close if it was live? If it was live, they wouldn't know exactly when they were going to come out the door, so they would have to get there sooner. So, that's one thing, but another thing is the break that occurs a few seconds into the live footage, where the zoom changes as does the angle, with a veil shot between the two. 

So, it went from this:

 To the veil shot:

To this, in a tiny fraction of a second? 

Homer could not have moved that fast. He couldn't have done anything in that amount of time. We are talking about a tiny, infinitesimal fraction of a second. So, how could it be live? 

Again, nobody can claim that Homer Vesco did something during the shooting because: he didn't have time to do anything. So, if that's what they showed on 11/23/63, it wasn't live. 

Robert Jackson claims to have developed his photo himself. But obviously, he had to turn it over to someone at NBC. And after that, who knows. What I know is that that photo- regardless of who took it and when it was taken- was altered. It was grotesquely altered.