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

So, the Towner Mother was there alone with her baby....

...and the only way she could have safely gotten there alone with her baby was to walk out her front door with a baby carriage with that baby in it and walk several blocks to Dealey Plaza. The mechanics of traveling by car or bus alone were too impractical and too unsafe. You can read my previous post for an exposition on that. She had to walk, and it couldn't have been very far; at the most, 5 or 6 blocks because she would have not ventured farther than that alone with that baby. So, she had to live in downtown Dallas and very close to Dealey Plaza. But, what are the chances of that?

But, of course, that's only one problem and hardly the biggest. An even bigger one is the problem of her holding that baby with one arm. And that is what she is doing throughout. Because, she is constantly waving at JFK with her left arm:

I hope you observed that her left hand is flicking constantly. It is just flicking away:  flick, flick, flick, flick, flick. It just keeps on a'flicking without taking a licking. It never stops. That means her left arm is raised above her head at all times. And it means that her left arm is NOT holding the baby. So, it is NEVER holding the baby. So that leaves only one thing left to hold the baby: HER RIGHT ARM.

But, before we get to that, did I mention that I have a new grandchild? Yes! He was born about 6 months ago, a healthy boisterous little lad. I'd give you his name, but I have too many ruthless enemies here. Anyway, I'm very involved in his life; I see a lot of him, and I help out in his care. And one thing I NEVER do is hold him with just one arm. He could slip from just one arm, and if the melon hits the ground and bursts, it's all over. So, I NEVER hold him with just one arm, and neither does his mother, nor his father, nor his grandmother. And the times that Linda has held him, she never holds him with one arm either. Nobody does. Yet, this Towner woman is, supposedly, holding her baby with just one arm and for quite a long time. But the question is: IS SHE HOLDING HIM AT ALL?  

Regardless of what we think we see above, we know from the film that she is not holding the baby with her left arm because that arm is waving at the President- constantly. So that leaves only her right arm. But, where is it? We don't see it. To hold the baby with her right arm, wouldn't the arm have to go around the baby, to encircle the baby, and therefore be visible to us? How could she be holding the baby without going the distance around the baby? She would need to be ENCLOSING the baby in her arm, but she's not doing that because if she were doing it, we would see it. Do you think that maybe she has her arm underneath the baby somehow? No, that is not plausible, and it is not possible. But, even if it were plausible, it would not prevent the baby from pivoting away from her. She would still need to have her other arm above to stabilize the baby- to keep it from falling away from her. Not down, but away, where it rocks backward. That's what I'm talking about. To prevent that, you need an arm above as well.  

Now, if the baby were old enough that it could hold onto her, the mother, that would make a difference. Say if the baby had both arms wrapped tightly around the mother's neck. It would still be risky to rely on that, and I wouldn't do it, but at least it would be something. But, you can see that this baby does not have her arms around her mother's neck. In fact, we can't even see any arms on this baby. Seriously, the baby appears to be armless. So, maybe it's a Thalidomide baby. You think? In any case, the baby is definitely NOT holding onto the mother, and we see no evidence that the mother is holding onto the baby. So, what is securing the baby? What is holding her up? What is keeping her from falling? How does any of this work?  

It does not work. It doesn't compute. It isn't real. It wasn't happening. That mother and baby are just techno-art that were added to the film. They were trying to authenticate the Altgens Mother and Boy who were added to hide the face of Jack Ruby.

That's what they were trying to duplicate, although why they thought a baby could pass for a boy, I do not know. 

Notice the other differences: the Altgens mother is dressed in white, the Towner mother in black. The Altgens boy looks to be about 3 and is dressed in a denim jacket. The Towner baby looks to be about 1 and is dressed in swaddling clothes. The Towner mother has her hair flowing down her shoulders; the Altgens mother has her hair pulled back or cut very short. They are not the same woman, and a 3 year old boy is not a 1 year old baby. 

But, here's the clincher: at least the Altgens pair were real. They weren't there, but they were somewhere. But, the Towner mother and baby were not real. They did not exist. They weren't anywhere. They are just techno-art, fabricated out of nothing. 

Is there any way around any of this? No, there isn't. The Towner Mother and Baby really are fake. Completely and totally fake. And this about as Machiavellian as it gets. Not even Stalin or the Nazis ever resorted to anything quite like this.