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

The Idiot Backes wonders why I brought up the Towner Mother and Baby again. He assumes I did it for no particular reason, and that's because he can't think of one. But, the reason is that I am discussing the issue with someone in a forum in which one can't post images, but one can post links. So, I quickly put that up just to provide him the link so that he could see what I was talking about. 

So you see, Backes, you're wrong again. You're always wrong.

Backes doesn't think the Altgens Woman and Boy are fake, and he doesn't think the Towner Mother and Baby are fake. The only thing he thinks is fake are Oswald's bus and cab rides- which were NOT fake. So again, Backes is wrong about simply everything.

Backes says that there is no discrepancy between the Altgens Woman and Boy and the Towner Mother and Baby as to their respective locations. And he provided a little techno diversion concerning triangulation. 

Well, in that case, someone should be able to go to Dealey Plaza and place a Fedora Man, a Woman and Boy/Baby in spots chosen by himself and then photograph them from Altgens position and from Towner's position and duplicate their appearance in the Altgens photo and the Towner film. 

Well, I say it can't be done, and I'm willing to bet on it. We can make the bet large or small. And I'll meet the person in Dealey Plaza not to participate but to observe. It will be all his show. But, I know damn well it can't be done, and if anyone on Earth thinks it can and wants the opportunity to take Ralph Cinque to the cleaners, then pipe up. In fact, he could even go to Dealey Plaza ahead of time and try it himself without me- just to make sure. And if he does that, he'll quickly find out that he does NOT want to bet.

But, first things first: the biggest problem that jumps out at you is the fact that in Altgens we have a little boy, and in Towner, we a baby.

I wonder if Backes thinks his triangulation can account for that as well: the disparity in the age of a child. It's obviously a baby on the right. It's a little boy in denim jacket and wool cap on the left. Now, as for the baby, it isn't real, and it can't be real. Do this as experiment: compare the ratio of the size of the boy's head to that of his mother on the left to the ratio of the size of the baby's head to that of its mother on the right. And remember that the boy's head fills that wool cap. Can you see that the boy on the left has a head that is almost as big as his mother's? Can you see that the baby on the right has a head that is only about a third as big as it's mother's? But, the baby is absolutely impossible because the fact is that babys have big heads- in proportion to the size of their bodies.
But, that baby is a freak. It has microcephalus. Now, keep in mind that the image of the Towner mother on the right, which is from Robin Unger, was photoshopped. It looks like she has her left hand and arm going over to support the baby, but she doesn't. In the film, she is waving her left hand high overhead the whole time. Watch it again.

Do you see that flicking? That's her waving her left hand constantly overhead. So, what do we have here?

It's totally different. It looks like her left arms is down. You can see the point of her left shoulder, which you couldn't see if her arm was up. And it looks, I suppose, like she's wearing a white glove. But, it's all fake. She was waving her left hand overhead.

Do you, or do you not, see that constant flicking? It never stops. She never alters it the whole time we see her. If you look at them close, really close, you realize that the mother and baby are both static-still art. They're not moving at all- except for that flicking hand overhead. And if that's not her left hand flicking away, what is it? So, she, supposedly, is holding the baby with her right arm alone, and she is waving with her left. But, where is her right arm? Why can't we see it going around the baby?

Again, her left hand is being waved overhead, and her right arm is nowhere to be seen. So, how is she supporting that baby?  

Another mistake Backes made is in his interpretation of this image:

The Fool said that it indicated the distance between the two men. Well, how could it possibly indicate the distance? Distance is a linear measurement between two points that is quantified in recognized mathematical units, such as meters, yards, or whatever. So, how could that be a distance? It can't. Backes is an idiot. An intelligent 8th grader could run circles around him. 

What that line represents is the man being turns and LOOKING at Oswald. It's his line of sight. And, you don't need any units for that because it is a direction, not a distance. 

You're stupid, Backes. You were born stupid. You live stupid. You breathe every breath stupidly. And nothing spews from your voicebox that isn't stupid because stupid is all you are and all you know. 

Do you think the Fedora Man is facing forward towards the street? I could understand that you think he SHOULD be. But, don't let what you think he SHOULD be doing cloud your vision of what he is actually doing.

If he's facing forward, then that means we're seeing some of his forehead, right? Beneath the rim of his hat? Then, why is it black?

Why is his forehead as black as the Ace of Spades? And don't tell me it's shadow. That's ridiculous. Look how far down it goes. 

But now, try looking at him a different way. Look at him as though we're seeing the back of him, and he's facing the other way, towards Oswald:

So, the light coloring, the little patch of it above the boy's head, is the ribbon of his fedora hat. Everything else is the hat. 

 Look at it again with that expectation. Can you see the ribbon?

And that would explain why is forehead looks black. It's not his forehead. And don't tell me he's African-American because his black is much darker than their skin, which you can see in the picture. Notice also that we can see the point of his right shoulder. Can you see it?

Now, if he's facing forward, what is that angle? It doesn't belong there if he's facing forward. Look at him again with the perspective that we're seeing his back, and we're seeing the rim of his hat, and we're seeing some of the ribbon of his hat. Are we seeing a tuft of hair at the back of his neck?

That looks to me like it might be a little bit of posterior neck line hair there sticking out beyond the boy's cap. If so, he was due for a haircut. You know who else was do for a haircut?

That guy was awful short. Jack Ruby was 5'8" just an inch less than Oswald. But, Oswald is a little curled there, and standing tall, he'd be more than an inch taller than the shooter. So, the shooter was short. Shorter than Jack Ruby. Well, the Altgens Fedora Man was short too, barely taller than that little woman. 

So, is it possible that Altgens Fedora Man was the Garage Shooter who pretended to be Jack Ruby? It's an interesting speculation. 
That's all it is at this point, a speculation, but it is interesting and plausible. The Garage Shooter was definitely not Jack Ruby.