And of course, she is not carrying June. June is, presumably, walking next to her, their hands clasped.
Now, does everybody and his freakin', frucken' brother agree that that can't possibly be a 1 year, 9 month old?
And just to shut the traps of the bloodied, notice that that child is wearing long pants. In the other picture, she wasn't.
I shouldn't have to say this, but, that is bare legs, and this is panted legs.
So, there is definitely photographic fraud here.
Now listen, James Norwood: The bloodied person you're dealing with doesn't care. He is soaked in blood. Who knows how much Iraqi blood he's soaked in. But you, presumably, care about the truth. He doesn't give a whit about it, but you presumably do. Now you know there is photographic fraud involved in these images of Marina. And, if there is fraud involved in HER images, what does that tell you about images of Oswald, Ruby, etc.? James, there was a frenzy, a tsunami of photographic alteration in the JFK assassination, and you can be darn sure it spilled over to the Oswald assassination. We are talking here about the most photographically altered event in the history of Man, and probably by a very wide margin. Nothing else even comes close to it. Are you going to go on defending all the images?