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

That dirty, rotten protector of Kennedy-killers Sparta from McAdams' forum. First, he stupidly suggests that there was no time to alter the NBC footage because it was shown right away. But, nobody had a TIVO or other home recording device at the time. So, if they altered it later and started showing it that way, who could dispute it? And since it was seen fleetingly, and with no expectation of seeing it, it's unlikely that anyone would even remember. And let's also remember that it's only 1963 adults who would have any chance of remembering, and anyone who was an adult in 1963 is pretty damn old today. My mother was an adult in 1963, and she is 96 years old now. So, they don't have too much to worry about that someone who saw it then will recognize a later alteration from having seen the original. 

But, the image in question is this: whether this is shadow around "Ruby's" eye.

Notice how well illuminated "Ruby's" face is overall, save for the "shadow", which Danny Aielo and many others took to be sunglasses. So, Sparta submitted these images as examples of the same thing:

Those aren't natural photos. Those are art photos, in which the resultant effect was desired and sought. And how it was achieved involved technical measures, undoubtedly including Photoshopping or the equivalent. It's not as though any of them consisted of seeking a regular, clear natural image of someone, just pointing the camera, focusing and shooting. There is nothing "spontaneous" about any of them. Spontaneous, Sparta. Do you know what the word means? Did you learn that in college? You can't compare any of them to this, which is supposed to be a natural, spontaneous image:

I have to wonder if this guy Sparta really is Steve Haydon because he is stupid enough to be Haydon, and that is pretty damn stupid. But, this is absurd. You have to realize that, in general, photography seeks to capture the real world, to capture on film the world as it looks to our eyes. And especially in this case where it was a news event of historic importance: a man walking 30 feet to a car.  Obviously, the lighting in the garage wasn't anything like the strange and deliberately weird lighting used in those images to create a specific, sought-after, attention-drawing effect. The stupidity involved in comparing the two is outrageous. You're stupid, Sparta! You hear me? You're dumb as dirt. You're as stupid as that Idiot Backes.