Backes: most men don't like being touched by other men in that area. It's a little too close for comfort. You show me one other time that a police officer did that- in the entire history of law enforcement.
You really think he had his hand tucked in Oswald's pants?
We can't see a belt on Oswald. If he's wearing one, it's underneath the pull-over sweater. If you look closely, you can see the junction of the sweater and the pants.
But, we don't see the belt loops of the pants, so they must be covered by the sweater.
Again, we can't see a belt there. The Idiot actually referred to it as "where a belt would be" implying that there was no belt. Yet, the quote he put up made reference to a belt.
We don't see any belt, so if he's wearing one, it's underneath the sweater.
His hand is higher than the bottom of the sweater, so are we to believe that he's got his fingers buried in Oswald's pants, through the sweater, from his knuckles to his fingertips? He's got all that down there? No way! That would be quite a feat, and you would see the separation caused by it. But, the sweater doesn't even look wrinkled. It looks perfectly flush; completely undisturbed. And what's that little tab sticking out? How do you explain that photographically?
Either his index finger was buried inside or it was out in plain view. Take your pick; there's nothing in-between. So, what is that?
And the same is true of the other iconic photo taken by Jack Beers.
And I still say that that shooter looks too short to be Jack Ruby. Ruby was 5'8".