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

If we were talking about ANYTHING ELSE except the JFK assassination, there is no way that anyone who would say that these two men were the same man. Not only does the comparison of their specific anatomical features rule it out- and remember that it takes only one disconnect to rule it out- but even the general impression that you get of each of them are miles apart. What I am saying is that, even intuitively, you know they are different men. 

There is a term in Medicine "physiognomy" which refers to the visceral impression, the gut feeling, that you get about a person's character from their physical features, particularly their face. So, if you had to run into one or the other of these two guys alone in a dark, abandoned alley at midnight, which one would you rather run into? 

The JFK assassination world is a bizarro world, and this is as good an example of it as any. I understand why they want these two men to be the same man. It's because if they're not, it destroys everything about the official story. If they're not the same man, then it was Oswald in the doorway. And if it's Oswald in the doorway, then every word of the Warren Report, the HSCA Final Report, including the stupid dalliances of Robert Groden, are rendered totally, utterly moot, pointless, and dead. It drives a spike right through the heart of JFK officialdom. 

And so they fight it, and if they have to say that two vastly dissimilar men are the same man, they will. If they have to say that a man was a woman, they will. And if they have to say that physically impossible things happened- such as a woman holding a baby up with no arms, where she is waving her left arm over her head and her right arm is nowhere to be seen, and yet the baby is, somehow, being supported:

In the Towner film, this woman is waving at the President with her left are CONSTANTLY. She is doing it over and over again for as long as we see her in the film, which is about 6 seconds. She never stops. She never puts her arm down. She is just constantly waving. 

Therefore, that thing that looks like a "halo" or a bald spot on top of her head is actually her left hand. Her left arm is raised waving at JFK. See for yourself. 

 Do you see that flicking left hand? She is waving constantly at the President with her left hand. She is- supposedly- holding that baby with just one arm for all that time just so that she can keep waving at the President. 

So, getting back to the picture then, remember that it is supposedly a still frame from that movie, from what we are seeing above. So, we know that her left arm must be above her head waving at JFK. 

So, why does it look like she has another left arm that is coming across from below to support the baby. Doesn't that look like an arm with a glove on the hand? And doesn't it look like the top part of her arm is coming down from her left shoulder? Why is that "halo" the only part of her left upper extremity that we see going up? Why don't we see her left arm actually raised, like this?

Shouldn't it look something like that? 

But, regardless of what we see and what we don't see in the still frame, WE KNOW THAT HER LEFT ARM IS WAVING. And therefore, she cannot be holding the baby with it. 

So that leaves only her right arm to be holding the baby. 

 But, there is no sign of her right arm holding the baby. It would be very precarious to try to hold that baby with just her right arm, but if she did it anyway, the only possible way to do it would be to get her arm AROUND the baby, which means that we should see it. It means that we have to be able to see it, or otherwise, she's not doing it. Well, study the picture and see if you can see see her right arm. 

That is a grotesque image. It is a flagrantly fraudulent image. It is sickening and nauseating that anybody would try to defend this crap as legitimate. They put that phony image into the Towner movie, and the purpose was to confirm and authenticate the phony Woman and Boy they put into the Altgens photo:

She would have to be Superwoman to hold that boy perfectly vertical, as she appears to be doing. You may not realize how hard that would be to do, but she indeed would have to be Superwoman to do it. And the boy would have to be Superboy because with just her one arm underneath him, the balancing would fall upon him. He'd be perched there, and he'd have to keep himself from falling. The whole thing is just plain preposterous. That boy is standing- somewhere. Nobody is holding him up. He is holding himself up. He is as posturally autonomous as any person can be, young or old. 

Ah, but for the vile, wicked wretches who defend this evil crap... Oh, but there will be a reckoning. That's one thing I do believe. There will definitely be a reckoning.