Monday, November 30, 2015

I am having fun playing around with this Google Street View. Here's Elm Street from south side. Look familiar?

One thing is absolutely crystal: if Mary Moorman took her photo the way she said she did, which is, just facing Elm Street directly and shooting squarely; not turning and facing it at a diagonal, that she would have picked up the slope of the road, and because of it, the front part of the car would be lower than the back of the car, just as you see above.

Notice that the line of the car is not parallel with the bottom of the picture. The bottom of the picture is, of course, horizontal, but the slope of the car matches the slope of the road, and it is a downward slope to our left.

But, what about the Moorman?

It's opposite. The line of the car is ascending to the left. It's not parallel with the bottom of the photo, and that molding that you see is going up- in the picture- as it goes leftward. 

Now, it wasn't going up in real life; it was going down to the left. So, why did it get captured that way in the picture? It's because it was taken on a diagonal from the right, as the professor taught us. 

So, there is NO DOUBT that the Moorman photo was taken on a diagonal, and it's heartening to know that others have realized it. 

But, doesn't it bother you that Mary Moorman has never ever, in 52 years, said that she did that or demonstrated it that way?

And the thing is: I believe her. She has said, numerous times, that she took her picture straight on when the Kennedys were right in front of her. It was just as they are looking above and as Matt Lauer is pointing. And that means that she could not possibly have taken this diagonally-shot photo.

Here is a good shot of that pedestal. 

So, you think a pudgy, middle-aged woman climbed up on there? How? You'd pretty much have to crawl up there. Get your clothes all dirty. And then once you got up there, how boisterous do you think you would be? As boisterous as this?

Maybe if you had a lot of practice, you might get used to it. But, the first time? I think you'd stay in your comfort zone, more like Toni did 50 years later. And look at it again, and notice how high the persons would be standing up on that pedestal, towering over those below.

If you're 6 foot, you're rather tall. If you're 5'6", as I am, you're rather short. But just think: there's only 6 inches between the two.  I can easily span my thumb and index finger 6 inches.

That came out a little blurry because I held the camera and pressed the shutter with one hand, my left hand, and I'm right-handed. But, you get the idea. 

So, unless the people standing on the sidewalk in front of Toni and her mother were the Dallas Mavericks, they (Toni and her mother) would have towered over them.

They are on the ground there, and I must admit that until recently, I did not know that anybody thought otherwise. I have been looking at that picture for years, and it never even occurred to me that anyone was claiming that they were standing on a tall pedestal. It is completely and totally ridiculous. They are obviously and definitely standing on the grass. It was my immediate impression from the first time I saw it. And I have no doubt that if we showed it to 100 unprepped subjects and asked them to describe what was going on, that most likely 0 out of a 100 would say that they are standing on a pedestal. 
The issue of Oswald giving someone directions to the phone on his way out of the building is murky, but I wish to address it.

William Manchester, the historian who wrote The Death of A President in 1967 which dutifully supported the official story in every detail, claimed that it was newsman Robert Mc'Neil with whom Oswald interacted. But, McNeil claimed to have had his interaction immediately after the shots, seconds later, not several minutes later. And McNeil saw Oswald later that day, and he saw his image plenty on television and in newspapers, and he never once claimed that Oswald was the man to whom he talked. Furthermore, Secret Service agent Thomas Kelley said that Oswald said that the man he talked to was "young" (McNeil was 8 years older than Oswald, so why would Oswald describe McNeil as young?) and had a crewcut (which McNeil did not have). 

So, when you really apply the known facts, there is no basis to assume it was Robert McNeil.

The other guy, Pierce Allman, fits the picture better. He was young. He did have a crewcut. And there was a delay before he went into the building. After the shots and after the limo sped away, he ran up the Grassy Knoll first and was looking around before he headed for the Depository. That could have easily eaten up a few minutes.

But, Pierce Allman has never- to this day- said definitively that Oswald was the man whom he encountered. Here he is talking about it in 2013. 

You can listen from the 32 minute mark. To me, he sounds open to the possibility of it being Oswald but by no means certain. And earlier in the interview, he talked about the encounter with a young "man in the doorway" who gave him directions to the pay phone, and he didn't mention Oswald at all.

So, to me it means that it's somewhat compelling to think that it was Allman, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. And remember that when SS Agent Thomas Kelley wrote his report, Oswald was already dead, so he had nothing to fear about Oswald contradicting him. 

So, it was presumably Allman; that's all you can say. Presumably. 

But regardless, it does not have any bearing on Oswald's presence in the doorway earlier when the motorcade was passing. It definitely didn't happen then. If it happened, it happened when Oswald was leaving the building for home. And we already know that he left, so it really doesn't establish anything of importance. You can't use it to confirm Oswald's presence in the doorway during the motorcade, nor can you use it to challenge it. It has no bearing on it.

But, we have already established Oswald's presence in the doorway, beyond any shadow of a doubt, because we have two images of him in the doorway at the time of the shots, the most important one being from the Altgens photo.

The above is what proves Oswald's presence in the doorway, and nothing more is needed. That's the nature of proof; only one is needed. 

I am reminded of Albert Einstein. After he came over here and his theories of relativity became famous, a consortium of German scientists released 35 proofs that his theories were wrong. And his response was, "What did they need so many for? One proof would have sufficed."

And the same is true here. 

And note that my enemies don't offer any collage of Doorman and Lovelady to show how much better his match was. No, they don't do that. Instead, they break into my website and corrupt the code so as to make it invisible to search engines. 

If you were in a historical debate with someone, and you had confidence and conviction about your position, would you do that? Would you try to win that way? Would it even occur to you? Would you stoop so low as to do that? That is, would you resort to crime, cyber crime? I'm sure you wouldn't, and the fact that they do shows that they realize how WEAK their position is and how STRONG our position is. They know they can't win based on facts and evidence, and that is why they resort to crime, cyber crime and other crimes, including street crime, thug crime.

The debate is over. Oswald was in the doorway. There is no doubt about it. There isn't even a plausible alternative for him to be anywhere else at 12:30, and that includes, of course, the 6th floor. 

It's time to stop the lies because Oswald was outside. 

11:17 AM (3 hours ago)
Oswald left the TSBD and went back to his rooming house because he knew he

being set up.  How did Oswald know this?  What led Oswald to believe that
he was

the patsy?  Can someone please answer this question? 

Ralph Cinque:

Wrong, oh pink one. Why assume Oswald suspected he was being framed before he got arrested? He went to the theater because he was ordered to go there, presumably to meet somebody; a rendezvous.  He certainly didn't have a hankering for a war movie. Oswald didn't go to movies even on a good day. 

But, after he was arrested, he was presented with evidence of a rifle purchase which he knew he didn't make; he was shown the Backyard photos of himself which he knew wasn't him; and he was told he went to Mexico City, which he knew he didn't do. So from all that, he realized that he was being framed, that it was more than just the police making a mistake, perhaps because he went to Russia. He knew then that he was being set up.   
This is not directly related to JFK, but it does concern a crucial development in history: the rise of Communism in Russia. And as you well know, the Cold War with Russia had a lot to do with why JFK was killed. 

I asked Hidden History author Jim MacGregor: since the Secret Elite started World War 1 for the express purpose of destroying Germany, what about Russia? Did the Secret Elite have anything to do with sponsoring Lennin and Trotsky et. al, in the overthrow of the Czar? Here is his reply:

Absolutely Ralph. They used the gullible Czar from beginning to end to
get their war with Germany.  Trotsky was funded by Rothschild agent
Jacob Schiff on Wall Street.  In his autobiography Trotsky tells of his
few months in New York in early 1917 before being sent across to Russia
to join up with Lenin. This 'poverty stricken' journalist (as he
describes himself) and undesireable kicked out of Europe actually
relates how he and his wife and kids lived in New York for those months
in an apartment with concierge, lift, fridge, telephone and other
trappings of wealth for that time. He says it was through income earned
as a journalist in the few short weeks he was there, and other such
bullshit.  He describes how his kids felt sorry for the chauffeur
because he wouldn't join them when they went into tea rooms for
afternoon tea.  I kid you not, it's all there in his 'My Life.'  On
his way to Russia, Trotsky and some fellow agents were dragged off the
ship at Halifax, Nova Scotia by police and port officials who were
unaware of his sponsors.  Urgent mesages were fired to Halifax from the
very top in Washington and London to get them back on their merry

Lenin, meantime, was transferred across Germany from
Switzerland to Sweden (en route to Russia) on a 'sealed' train. One of
the leading Germans responsible for his transfer was Max Warburg, head
of the MM Warburg Bank in Hamburg and also head of German Secret
Service. Mainstream history relates that Germany helped Lenin because
he would remove Russia from the war against them.  What it does not
relate is that Max Warburg was, like Jacob Schiff on Wall Street, an
agent of Lord Rothschild (Secret Elite) in London.  Max was also the
brother of Paul Warburg who played a crucial role in setting up the
corrupt Federal Resrve System which enabled the elites to steel the
nation's wealth, fund WW1, and create money out of thin air before
'lending' it at high interest to the government.    Paul Warburg, who
worked alongside Jacob Schiff at the Kuhn, Loeb and Co Bank on Wall
Street (A Rothschild front) was likewise a Rothschild agent. Brothers
Paul in New York and Max in Germany kept in daily contact during the
war. It would be impossible to make this up!

Writers, including Eustace Mullins and Prof  Antony Sutton (kicked out of 

Stanford for his  troubles, have revealed how and why the elite cabal in 
London/New York set up the Bolshevik Rev.  Between 1914-18 the old world 
order was destroyed as planned, including: the Russian, German, Autro-Hungarian
and Ottoman Empires.  Britain and France were on their knees.  The
Secret Elite ( lead by Rothschild and Rockefeller) had taken control of
banking, industry, the press and politics in the US, just as they had
in Britain, and would now use its ever increasing power to drive their
new world order agenda. Stanford, as Steve rightly says, has played a
very significant role in that.

This is a very quick, potted account
which we will greatly expand upon in our next book.

Best wishes,

John Paul Jones 
Nov 29 (11 hours ago)
We have established that there was likely two Oswalds at the TSBD. One
seen existing the front entrance and confirmed by Oswald's admission
during interrogation. The other seen exiting the rear entrance down the
loading dock as witnessed by Buell Frazier.

We have the testimony of James Files who describes a LHO that drove an
automobile. Yet we know as per Ruth Payne that Oswald could not drive.
Payne gave him driving lessons.

Of course we have the Hoover memo indicating a suspicion of an Oswald

One could speculate that the intelligence agency at the heart of this was
playing a deadly covert game and manipulating the real Oswald. This
explains the conflicting attributes ascribed to LHO. More to think

Ralph Cinque:


According to John Armstrong, there was a brief time in New Orleans when the two Oswalds- and by that, I mean the two young men who were both living their home, school, and workaday lives, their whole existence, as Lee Harvey Oswald- were working for two separate freight companies that were located on different floors of the same building. Doesn't it seem likely that they would have encountered each other?

I shall ask John Armstrong to comment. 

Please be careful how you use the term "real" Oswald because the Oswald of fame was not the real LHO, meaning the one was born LHO, yet, he was the the real LHO of the story since he was the one who worked at the TSBD, got framed, etc.   

Sunday, November 29, 2015

We all know the story of Pierce Allman, who reportedly got directions to the pay phone from Oswald, although it is disputed. 

But, I just found something from him that really pins the tail on the donkey. Go to 5 minutes and 20 seconds in this video. You'll hear him say that after he rushed in to use the phone, "they wouldn't let us out of the Texas Book Depository building."

And that confirms what Bonnie Ray Williams said that they wouldn't let him out of the Texas Book Depository building.

Mr. McCLOY. Were you physically kept from leaving the building when you got downstairs? Did you try to go out of the building?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir; I wasn't trying to go out of the building because there wasn't any use of trying to, because at the time we arrived on the first floor, I heard an officer shout out and say, "No one leave the building."

And that means that this image of Bonnie Ray Williams in the Gorilla Man clip is fake.

Bonnie Ray Williams wasn't there at the time and could not have been there at the time. Billy Lovlady was not there at the time and could not have been there then. And the same is true of Danny Arce, whom we also supposedly see (barely) in the center of the above frame. It is fake. It didn't surface until 1966. It is claimed to be from the Martin film although it is not seen in the Martin film. It was fabricated to defuse the racket that Harold Weisberg was making about Lovelady having worn a striped shirt, which he did.

Look how stupid this is. It assumes that because Kelley claimed that he asked Oswald if he watched the parade and Oswald said no, that we have to assume that Kelley gave an accurate account, including that what Oswald actually did instead never came up. Bpete stupidly thinks that we, the Oswald defenders, have no choice but to accept the veracity of what Thomas Kelley said, word for word. 

Just assume for a moment that Kelley did ask that question, and Oswald answered, "Yes, I did watch the parade. I was standing in the doorway at the time, not far from Bill Shelley."

Is there any chance that Kelley was going to admit to that? Was there any chance he was going to include it in his report? Of course not. 

Bpete goes on to try to parse the meaning of "standing in front of the Textbook building" which was in Kelley's text. It looks like plain English to me. If you are in front of a building, you're in front of it, you're not inside it. And if you're inside it, you are not in front of it. And what makes it even more ridiculous is that it's just hearsay. We don't know the exact words that Oswald used. We don't know exactly what he said. As I understand it, from other testimonies, Oswald was inside about to go out, meaning at the door, when these two guys came in and asked for the pay phone. But, one thing is for sure, you're never going to get to the exact bottom of it by parsing Kelley's statement. That's a waste of time.

And look what the idiot overlooked: Oswald's explanation of why a Cuba/Castro lover had no reason to kill Kennedy since Johnson would replace him. Common sense. Read it again because it's important, and then get the word to Pink "Boz" O'Blazney who thinks Oswald killed Kennedy over "political ideology."

And again, Kelley was not quoting what Oswald said. What Oswald actually said may have been a far cry from that. So, we can ignore the specific wording. All that matters is that Oswald acknowledged that it would be pointless to kill JFK when LBJ would replace him. Period. 

My enemies hacked into the OIC website and corrupted its search engine visibility.

Some of the damage has already been undone. 

And, a new program has been installed by which I will be notified any time a change is made to the coding, including changes that I make myself. 

For instance, if I add a new member, I will be notified that a change was made, and if I approve it. Any change to the coding- whatsoever- will have to be approved.

There is a lot more that is going to be done in the coming days and weeks, and frankly, at great expense, but I shall do it. I can't detail it at this time, but at some point, when we are ready, I am going to ask all OIC members and friends and supporters to start visiting the 7 pages of the OIC website, in mass.

That will be one step in a diligent campaign to get our search engine visibility back.  

I'm asking you to do it and to send the link to all you know who you think will also do it.  And, I hope you will think of it like all of us putting on Guy Fawkes masks and taking to the streets.

The Oswald Innocence Campaign is the biggest threat to JFK officialdom in the world today.
The blood-soaked killers can't beat us in the realm of ideas, and that's why they resort to tactics like this. But, they can't beat us- even at this. 

So, when the time comes, I'll give you the word, and please join in the fight with all of your might.

This typed statement by Postal Inspector Thomas Kelly does not make sense.

Kelley claimed that he asked Oswald if he viewed parade and that Oswald said he had not. 

Well, there's no way the question would have settled there. This was a situation in which the vast number, nearly all of the employees viewed the parade. So, if Kelley asked Oswald if he viewed the parade and Oswald said no, then the very next thing out of his mouth would have been why he wasn't viewing it, what he was doing instead, and where he was doing it. But, Kelley didn't say a word about it. Kelley made it sound as if the conversation went like this:

Kelly: Did you watch the parade?
Oswald: No, I did not.
Kelly: Well, that's surprising because most of the employees did, practically all of them, and most people would wonder why you weren't interested. But, you want to know something? I'm not most people. And I'm not interested in why you didn't care to watch it. I just want to know if you shot the President.
Oswald. No, I did not.
Kelly: Did you shoot Connally?
Oswald: No, I did not.

You see, it doesn't work. It doesn't make sense. And it certainly didn't go down like that.

Now listen up: The interrogators, from the very beginning, were carefully parsing their reports to frame Oswald. In the first Hosty/Bookout report, from the first interrogation, they didn't even mention "out with Bill Shelley in front" even though Oswald said it. They didn't mention it in connection to the assassination or to the aftermath. They didn't mention it. And, Will Fritz NEVER in his life mentioned it. He died keeping it a secret.

So, if you're objective, you won't take what they said as accurate and complete statements of what Oswald said. They were part of the whole frameup of Oswald. They were out to make Oswald look guilty.

And that's why we got extremely lucky in 1996 when the Fritz Notes surfaced. It was the most important discovery of evidence to surface in the case after November 22, 1963. And from them, we know that Oswald stated that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" during the motorcade, which means, during the assassination.

 And of course, we can see him there in the doorway at the time.

Next, the killer gets to Dr. Gerald McKnight.

It's very important to realize that Carolyn Arnold's first statement is the only one that mattered. And what she said, on Tuesday, November 26, 1963, is that she saw Oswald between the double doors, which means at the doorway, minutes before the assassination when she was outside. The Secret Service pegged the time as 12:15, but really it was 12:25. The reason we know that is because months later, when the FBI swept through the place again, Gestapo-style, to get proper statements from the employees, Carolyn Arnold obediently said that she didn't see Oswald at all. And, since she left out the part about Oswald, they put down the real time she was talking about for having seen him: 12:25. 

And as for what she said in 1978, over 5000 days later, just forget about it. It was just flim-flam. The HSCA was going on, and Oswald in the doorway was in the news again. By having her say that she saw Oswald eating in the 2nd floor lunch room 5 minutes before, it distracted away from the doorway. There is no chance that it was true because Oswald said he ate in the 1st floor lunch room. It's in several of the interrogation reports. And he cited James Jarman and Harold Norman has having been around at the time. They did not confirm seeing him (although, I learned from Dr. McKnight that James Jarman did initially tell Dallas police that he did see Oswald at the time, until he was informed that he didn't, and he better not say it again) but, the very fact that Oswald correctly identified 2 out of 70 employees who were there at the time proves that he was telling the truth. 

So, Oswald definitely ate his lunch in the 1st floor lunch room in the Noon to 12:15 time frame, and even Vincent Bugliosi admitted it. According to him, Oswald ate his cheese sandwich and apple from Mrs. Paine's house and then, at 12:15, he went up to the 6th floor to kill Kennedy. 

But, it leaves no chance that Oswald was up in the 2nd floor lunch room eating a second lunch at 12:25.

So, Carolyn Arnold is a powerful witness for Oswald innocence and for Oswald in the doorway, and that's why they went to such exorbitant lengths in 1978 to reconstrue her testimony. Pay it no mind. Her first statement, made 4 days after the shooting, is the one that counts. It's the only one that matters. Dr. McKnight gives it a lot of weight, and so do I. 

The blood-soaked killer is calling both of these images "heavily altered."

The image on the left was tinted, but not by me. It was done by his friend, Robin Unger. He never complained when Robin tinted images. He never called them "heavily altered." 

But, the tinting is the only "alteration" and since everyone knows the Altgens photo was black and white, it is a visible, out-in-the open upgrade. And, it does not introduce any false impressions of what the images shows.

The image on the right is not altered at all. Of course, it was cropped, but it wasn't altered. 

Look at it again, and I'll tell you why I like it so much. 

It's because it shows the depth and intensity of the eyes to be the same on both. It's the same look, the same stare. And, it is obviously the same clothes, the same unbuttoned, sprawled open outer shirt over the notched t-shirt. They both have slender faces and slender builds. That's the same guy: Lee Harvey Oswald. 

And notice that the killer doesn't follow it with a collage of Lovelady and Doorman to show that it matches better- or even as good. That's because it doesn't. 
An idiot wrote recently that even if Oswald was in the doorway during the shooting, it doesn't mean he could not have been part of the conspiracy. 

That's technically true, but it's extremely unlikely; there is no evidence for it; and it certainly isn't the default position. In other words, it's not what a rational person would assume based on what we know.

If Oswald was part of the conspiracy, and say, he realized later that they framed him, that they were pinning it on him, why would he protect them? Wouldn't he at that point come clean? Spill his guts?

But, Oswald didn't know anything. That's what he said.  I don't know what this whole thing about it. 

"Nobody has told what this situation is about. I know I am accused of murdering a policeman. I know nothing more than that."

Now, think about it: if Oswald had been telling them about conspirators and a plot to kill Kennedy, would they have put him in front of world microphones to tell it to the world? They were obviously confident that he was going to tell the world the same thing he told them, that he knew nothing. 

So, why, on that basis, would you assume that he knew everything but was protecting the people who were trying to frame him?

That's why this is the rant of an idiot who is also a blood-soaked killer for the State, literally:

Why does he say that Oswald WAS, according to the OIC, a part of the conspiracy? Here is our Mission statement:

Mission Statement
We, the members of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, maintain that at the time of President Kennedy's assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository, where he was photographed by James "Ike" Altgens, which is clearly evident upon close examination of the photograph. This discovery categorically exonerates Oswald from having shot the President. We call upon the media to renounce the official story that impugns him--including the "Magic Bullet" theory, which is a conspiratorial fabrication--and we demand that the American government cease obstructing justice by promoting a gross falsehood, based on lies, which has allowed the true killers to remain free, unindicted, and unpunished.

The position of the Oswald Innocence Campaign is that Oswald was innocent, that he had no knowledge of the assassination plot, that he was kept completely in the dark by those who framed him. 

Whether he had any inklings or not I can't say, but he had no concrete knowledge of the plot. He didn't even know that the President's motorcade would be passing the TSBD that afternoon. He saw people gathering on the sidewalk out front, and he did not know why. He asked James Jarmon, and Jarmon told him. So obviously, Oswald did not know about the plot. 

I happen to be in contact with another person from the former Soviet Union. It's an older person who spent his entire youth living under Communism. I asked him about the slaughter of the Romanov family.

I've been thinking about it lately because in the book Hidden History,  the authors maintain that the Czar was very much involved in provoking the start of WW1. It was his mobilization against Germany which the Kaiser took as an act of war. But, the Czar only did it at the behest of the Secret Elite. The President of France traveled all the way to Russia- himself- just to get the Czar to go along with their plan. 

But, the authors also said at the beginning that Russia wasn't traditionally their ally- certainly not England's. And since the Secret Elite seemed to be in control of all the major events, did that include the Russian Revolution? I asked Gerry Docherty, and this is what he said: 

Ralph, this is unquestionably one of the really big exposes of the 1916-17 period.

You will remember that book 1 addressed only the causes, in which Russia was manipulated by our Secret Elite agents.

By 1916-17 the world had changed but our men were way ahead of the game. This is one of the topics which Jim specialises in and in due course we will pull it apart. The short answer is  -  they masterminded it.

But we are trying to take each major episode in its best timescale to focus everyone who is keen on historic truth. 



So, the Secret Elite "masterminded" the Russian Revolution, with Lenin and Trotsky et al. I suspected Gerry was going to say that.

And that's what resulted in the massacre of the Romanov family. I wonder if the Secret Elite was any part of that. At the very least, they must have known that it could happen- considering the people with whom they were dealing. I am reminded of the brutal execution of Colonel Gaddafi in the street by thugs about which Hillary Clinton made a callous remark. 

But, in the Soviet Union, what did they teach the schoolchildren about the slaughter of the Romanov family? According to my guest, they taught them that the Czar's own officers did it, that it wasn't the Bolsheviks, but rather, the ones fighting the Bolsheviks.

Of course, we all know what happened. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, and that lie collapsed with it. And it was pretty much instantaneous. The huge behemoth statues of Vladimir Lenin that dotted the Soviet Union were torn down. Fortunately, the Russians have a much better "Vlad" in charge these days. 

But, the point in regard to JFK is: even after 75 years of state, media, and school promulgation of the lie within the Soviet Union, it fell of its own dead weight as soon as the tethers were cut. And, it shall be the same way here. Will it take more or less than 75 years? It's already been 52. I don't know. And it doesn't matter. But, the outcome is certain. The truth shall prevail and go public: that Lee Harvey Oswald was just an innocent patsy, and the "deep state" killed Kennedy.    

Are you  completely out of your mind? Most all those people waving with two hands, are doing it with arms spread. 

There isn't one person doing it like this:

As I said, that's what you do in a jumping jack, not a wave. But, the worst thing is that it doesn't look like this:

They are supposed to be the same person. 

When you watch that Dorman film, and you see how boisterous and kinetic Toni Glover's movements are, the idea that she would move that way from atop this pedestal, where she had to share the space with her hefty mother, is ridiculous.

It's high. And, it would have been awfully crowded for two. The idea that she would have been carrying on so wildly from that high pedestal is ridiculous. Her self-preserving instincts would have restrained her and subdued her. This below are two people who are standing on solid ground. You can bet the farm. 

When waving with two hands, people tend to do it with their arms spread.

So, what is this?

It's  look like someone doing a jumping jack. It certainly does not look like an 11 year old waving:

So, what is this below? It is techno-art. 

Today, it's amazing how authentic computer-generated images can be. 

I think it's amazing that anyone could conceive of such beauty, that they would know how to being to create such a vision starting from a blank slate. But, besides her attractiveness, the whole photographic quality of the image is spot-on perfect. It looks real.

So, why does this look so crude and cartoonish?

Well, it was 1963. I don't know what crude method they used, but I am sure it was crude. 

But, you know it's not Toni Glover.

Her hair is different. They gave her just one loop of hair on the right instead of a thick mane.  Her hands are different. Look at the size of those mitts on the right compared to the small delicate hands on the left. She was 11 years old.

On the  right, it isn't real. One would have to be very obtuse and immature to deny it.