Well, this is a better job than the ridiculous thing that bpete submitted. At first glance, it does look better. But we need to look at it closer than that because it is still an utter failure. First, let's count the knuckles, because there should be a knuckle for every finger.
Like bpete, Sparta has got 5 fingers. But alas, poor Oswald still only has 4, if that's his hand. So, both bpete and Sparta demonstrated that all 5 knuckles do get captured when you photograph the hand like this. But, on the right there are only 4 knuckles, and that means there are only 4 fingers.
Now, here is something that is small, but VERY important. Look at the angle of the thumbnail. On Sparta (left), the nail is sideways to us. On Oswald (right) the nail is practically facing us.
Now, don't you think that if Sparta could have gotten his thumb to turn towards us as much Oswald's that he would have done so? He was trying to duplicate the photo, so of course he would have done it. But, he didn't do it because he couldn't do it. The thumb doesn't move in that manner. And that's why what we are seeing on the right is not a left thumb but a right thumb. And that's why we see the face of it so well. If you take your right hand and press your right thumb to your left index finger, it's no problem to get the nail to face you. That is what we are seeing in the Jackson photo.
Now, we are going to move on to the contour of the thumb. On Sparta, we are seeing a smooth curve with two prominences, which correspond to the two joints: the interphalangeal joint, which is distal, and the first metacarpal joint (the knuckle), which is proximal.
Now, I am going to call Sparta out for cheating here because he's got some fabric covering an area of the first metacarpal bone. But, he obviously arranged that; it did not happen spontaneously. But supposedly, what we are seeing on Oswald was a spontaneous occurrence. So, Sparta needs to show us the larger picture so that we can see if it looks like something that could happen spontaneously. When I took a picture wearing my sweater, the sweater did NOT cover my hand.
So, on me, the sweater did not overlap my hand. And it's VERY unlikely that it would because the hand is on top of the sweater, and there isn't that much play in the sweater. So again, we need to see how Sparta created his effect. We need to see it at large to see how plausible it is; to see if it looks like something that could occur spontaneously. If it doesn't, then it's irrelevant.
So on Sparta, it's a smooth contour for the thumb, but with two prominences for the joints. However, on Oswald, there is only a very slight prominence for the interphalangeal joint, and after that it just gets weird and undecipherable. There is really no sense you can make of that. There is really nothing that corresponds to the knuckle. And here's another important difference: on Sparta, even though he's got that fabric covering his hand, we can see that the line of the thumb is coming down, but not so on Oswald. Also, look at the difference in size. Did Oswald have a massive hand compared to Sparta? If all that is one hand, it looks massive compared to Sparta. But, we know that Oswald did NOT have massive hands.
That's Oswald handing out a pro-Castro leaflet in New Orleans, and you can see that his hands weren't massive, nor were his thumbs.
Finally, I got rid of the "bulge" or "puff" of the sweater material covering the hand on both of them.
So, on Sparta, on the left, we are left with a normal hand, with the appropriate size, shape, and contour. But, on Oswald, on the right, we are left with this massive, over-sized, misshapen thing that in no way looks normal or human. And look at how massively wide Oswald's wrist is. He was a slight man with a slender build and small bones. He did not have a giant hand. He did not have wide wrists.That is not his hand. It is not anybody's one hand. It is a freak hand.
So, this, the second submission in 53 years of a photo attempting to validate the Jackson photo, and it failed miserably. And we are left realizing that this image is, indeed, a monstrosity and a photographic abomination: