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

These are supposedly Marguerite Oswald in 1935 and 1942.

I am satisfied that they are the same woman because of the matching hair and the puffy cheeks. Yes, the idea that two women would both have hair that laid like that and looked like that is preposterous. Look how both have a faint part that is in the exact same spot. They're the same woman. 

The one on the right certainly looks older. I'd say she looks more than 7 years older. And the one on the right is definitely the Marguerite impostor. You see the mole. You see the space between her teeth. You don't see those on the left, but it is a highly retouched photo. There's some art going on there. It's almost more like a portrait than a photograph. And that brings us to this:

So, she was the Marguerite impostor, which means that she was NOT the mother of Robert Oswald, yet, it's signed as though she were. And, we can be sure that picture was signed by the Marguerite impostor because she is the one who did the fancy flourish on the M. Check out the loop:

That's the same handwriting, so the same woman signed it, and it was definitely the Marguerite impostor. So, I have to believe that Robert Oswald and the Marguerite impostor conspired to create this phony thing. After all, if the year was 1935, Robert Oswald was only 1 year old. At one point would you start signing pictures for a child? Here's a thought: when the child is old enough to read? What's the point of doing it before then? Look, this was just a very, very stupid thing they did. 

Now, if you are reading this, Robert Oswald, I want you hand over that signed image. We'll take it to forensic lab and find out how old the ink is. Was it signed in 1935 or was it signed much later than that? Perhaps science can tell us. But regardless, we already know that that woman was NOT your mother. So, you can just drop the act right now. The truth is closing in on you, Robert Oswald.