I tell you, this image really freaks me out. You've got that girl suspended there, and she looks like she is SITTING. Comfortably sitting. 

Look at the plane of her thigh and the axis of her spine. SHE IS SITTING! But, what is she sitting on? 

I mentioned about her sitting on the iliac crest of her mother, which is common, but is that girl close enough to her mother to do that, to really transfer her weight? To get it on there? If she were leaning away from her mother, she might be able to plant her weight properly on the bone, but she's not doing that. To me, it seems like the vector of the kid's weight- meaning the force of gravity- is following that arrow down to the ground, which would mean that the main thing that could resist that force would be the mother's arm, her left arm. I just don't see how that little girl could get all her weight over the woman's pelvic bone. That is a lot of that weight to be falling on what? The woman's arm? Her left arm? Look how frail the woman looks. Look how scrawny her right arm looks, which means that her left arm must look the same. We can't see her left arm, but it's absolutely got to be underneath the girl supporting her. But, that would be hard. Very hard.

So, we have to keep our eyes and our minds open. We have to explore all the possibilities. So, how about the possibility that the woman is wearing some kind of child-carrying sling which the kid is sitting in?  

Now, they do make them. We already have one for my grandson. And I wear it myself when I go out for walks with him. Here's an example of one. 

 Now, that one is quite sophisticated, and it looks very sturdy, and I imagine that anything that was available in 1963 was much more simple and sparse and elementary. But notice that there's a neck rest behind the little guy to provide support. Is it possible that that's what we are seeing on the girl.

It looks like the woman is wearing something besides a light blouse, and it looks like it may be an apparatus of some kind. and it looks like there may be straps or ties involved. Is there a strap going underneath the girl, a strap that she is sitting on? Again, compare them to the other woman with a kid.

On the right, it's all normal. You just have a mother holding a baby in a normal way, where the physics and the bio-mechanics of it are completely and thoroughly evident. But, on the left, you've got "extra stuff" for lack of a better term, and it looks like the girl may be suspended by that extra stuff. The girl looks very secure to me, like she's not the least bit worried that the woman is going to drop her. 

I'll point out that even if the mother on the left has her left arm underneath the girl to support her, it would not keep the girl from pivoting away from her. In other words, even if that frail, scrawny woman had the strength in her arm to do it, it wouldn't prevent an accident if the girl fell backwards. But, maybe that thing around her neck is some kind of backstop that is preventing such an accident.

It's for sure that the mother looks relaxed, and the girl looks relaxed; and nobody seems worried about a thing. Where does that assurance come from? It comes from a fool-proof system. Is that girl sitting in some kind of sling? 

Here is a very elementary child transport device

It doesn't get much simpler than that. Is the woman in our photo wearing something like that? Notice that the two kids are both straddling their mother the exact same way:

If you do a search for "child carrying slings" you find all kinds of devices. This is from Yahoo:

https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0LEV0.kootTrXAAwPdXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0cTRyZDlnBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDQ0NF8x?_adv_prop=image&fr=yfp-t-304&va=child+carrying+slings

And this is from Google:

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1440&bih=739&q=child+carrying+slings&oq=child+carrying+slings&gs_l=img.3...1541.3796.0.3930.21.15.0.5.0.0.142.1107.13j2.15.0....0...1ac.1.45.img..8.13.905.AAP8e7mI6iQ

So, is the woman on the left wearing some kind of device, some kind of sling to help her to support that child? 

I think there is a good chance that she is. We're definitely seeing extra stuff there. She's wearing something besides a pink blouse. And I suspect it is helping her to support that child. The idea that she could effortlessly support that kid's weight with her left arm is preposterous. It would be a strain. And she is not straining. 

The twisted Dungeon Master, with his gross ignorance of human biomechanics, is now telling lies about Oswald's t-shirt. He says that Oswald's t-shirt wasn't vee.

 It wasn't a store-bought v-neck t-shirt, but it was deformed into one by his habit of tugging on it, which not only Judyth Baker said he had the habit of doing, but so did his Marine buddy Anthony Botelho. 

Oswald most certainly did wear a t-shirt which tended to descend in front and look notched rather than round.

Add caption

That's what we are talking about, Lance, and you can see it on Oswald and Doorman. But, you never see it on Lovelady.

Then, Lance takes THE most distorted image of Doorman that he can find and uses it to represent his shirt pattern.

Clearly visible shirt pattern? You are a monstrous bastard, Lance.

Then he decides that Oswald's t-shirt was stretched and deformed during his arrest, from the struggle. But, he is just assuming that. He doesn't know that Oswald's t-shirt was grabbed. He is just helping himself to an unwarranted assumption. It's what little shits do. 

If you look at this image of Oswald, you can see that it's a highly worn t-shirt, pretty darn worn out.

That's an old t-shirt, and it wasn't made old by the struggle. It was old before the struggle. And we don't know that anybody grabbed Oswald's t-shirt. You can't just assume it. 

The bottom line is that Doorman's t-shirt sank into a vee and so did Oswald's.

We can see what shadow over white t-shirt looks like. You can see it substantially on the left. You see that grey area over the top of the t-shirt? That's what shadow over white t-shirt looks like. But the darkness of the vee is consistently dark. Obviously, it's skin under his chin that is in shadow. But, it looks exactly the same towards the bottom. The idea that there is a transition there from skin to fabric, and it all looks exactly the same is preposterous. 

And when do chin shadows lay down perfect vees? Answer: NEVER. To this day, NOBODY has ever submitted an image of somebody with a perfectly centered chin shadow. And concerning the lady at the reenactment, her shadow didn't even get anywhere near her chest where a t-shirt would be. It was confined to her neck. So that means nothing. We are talking about a shadow that would obscure shirt material, putting it in dark shadow, where a round t-shirt would be made to look artificially vee- an optical illusion. THAT IS PREPOSTEROUS. They have the whole world wide web to find an image of such a thing. Three years have gone by, and they still haven't done it. 

Doorman's v-shaped t-shirt is a spot-on match to Oswald's. 

And looky there: now we're even seeing light reflections that look about the same on both of them. Same pattern, wouldn't you say? You see, Lance, you spend too much time in the dungeon. It makes a big difference when someone is standing in bright light. 

The ironic thing is that I am only expounding on this and reinforcing this important point about Oswald's v-shaped t-shirt being seen on Doorman because you opened your big fat mouth about it, Lance. You break people in the dungeon, and in a different way, I do too, right here on this board.  

But, nevertheless, count yourself lucky that you're in England, Lance, because that is too far for me to go. Dallas isn't. 

Backass, I didn't say or imply that David Von Pein took the picture. I said that he features it on his site and said that it didn't "surface" until 2013. Now, if you know anything more about where it came from, then say so. 

Now, you're saying this is a collar on her dress?

It doesn't look like a collar to me. Here's a collar:

Here they are side by side:

Now, I don't like the way it looks, Backes, and if you don't like that, then you know what you can do: go to your proscenium arches.

And if it's the shadow of her hand, then why isn't her whole arm casting a shadow?

 On the other woman, her whole arm is casting a shadow:

So, I find it a bit strange that the girls' hand alone would cast a discreet, demarcated shadow. 

And as for this other thing:

I don't know what it is. It's weird. It is very squared off at the bottom on the left side. But, it is not a shadow. There is shadow to the left of it and below it, but "it" is not a shadow. But, I don't know what it is, and your attempt to dismiss it as "natural folds and shadows" is meaningless. 

Backes, I know you have spoken at JFK Lancer before, and I want to know if you are going to be speaking for them this November. It will be a short hop for me up to Dallas.  

Let's continue now discussing this unusual image.

Again, I would like to know where the whole image came from.

So, it was under lock and key for 49 years? In a safe? Where? By whom? And how did it "surface"? David Von Pein isn't saying. 

But getting back to the mother and child:

Her left arm isn't going around the girl since we can't see it there, and that means that it must be directly underneath the girl. And she couldn't do that for very long- her arm would give out. So, if this is legit, then it was a momentary thing, and then her right arm went right back to supporting the girl, perhaps under her left thigh. 

But, I want to point out that there's a difference between holding a child (like this) with one arm and a baby (like in Towner) with one arm. Intuitively, you know that you have to use two arms with a baby. And I am speaking from current experience with my baby grandson. And it's not a matter of strength; it's a matter of grip and losing it- the baby slipping away. In the above picture, if that woman were to drop that girl, it would be bad, but it wouldn't be life or death. But, a baby dropped on the hard pavement could hit its head and die.  

 So, because the little girl is effectively hugging her mother with her legs and probably has her right arm going around her back, she is contributing to the perch. So, if the mother removed her right arm momentarily in order to wave, she could have done it, but not for very long. She could have done it briefly and then quickly put it back, and that is apparently what happened here. Believe me: she had to get her right arm back underneath that girl pronto.

So, on the left, we can't see either arm supporting the girl, but we assume that her left arm is underneath the girl and that we'd see it if not for JFK's head. But, on the right, we know that her left arm is being waved above her head, and there is nothing obstructing our view on the other side. So, why can't we see her right arm coming around nestled under the baby's butt? 

  
There is no excuse for not seeing her right arm. It is a Smoking Gun of the fraudulence of the image. There is no excuse for not seeing her left arm going up. It is also a Smoking Gun of the fraudulence of the image. In fact, if you look at it closely, you can see that her left arm is coming down. I'll put an arrow to the point of her left shoulder. 

Now, that is her left shoulder. It is the outside of her left shoulder. But, if her arm were raised overhead, what would we be seeing? Wouldn't we be seeing her arm pit?

 Look at them side by side:

OK, so here is what it means: It means that there is a conflict, a contradiction between what we see in the Towner movie and what we see in the Towner frame of the Mother and Baby. In the movie, the mother is waiving her elevated left hand constantly. But, in the frame, her left arm doesn't appear to be elevated at all. In fact, if anything, it looks like it is coming down and going over to support the baby. But, she is waving it constantly in the film. 

So, where did that still frame come from? It is disassociated from the film. It does not occur in the film. It is an altered photoshopped image. And it is a Smoking Gun that the whole thing is fake. She isn't real. The baby isn't real. They are both techno-art that were added to the movie.  

Backes would rather talk about this other woman, on our left. 

I didn't overlook her, Backes, but there is a whole heck of a lot to be said about her, and it was getting late last night, so I put it off. But now we'll get into her, and I am really going to roll up my sleeves. This is either going to be a very long post OR it's going to take multiple posts. 

First, I want to know where did this image come from, Backes. You're big on providing sources. So, what is the source of this image? Is it a photograph or the frame from a film? Who took it? Where was the motorcade at the time? Tell me everything you can about this image. 

You won't cooperate? That's OK. I found it myself. It's from David Von Pein. And he says it wasn't discovered until 2013.

On his site, DVP just says that it and two other color photos surfaced in 2013 and that the motorcade was at Turtle Creek at the time. But, he doesn't say where they came from other. They are mighty good pictures: the color, the details. Hmmm. But, surfaced from whom? from where? and under what circumstances? Peinhead doesn't explain.  And recognize something else: since the images had never surfaced before, it means that ANYTHING could be done to them, and no one would have any other version to compare it to. It gave them a blank check to photoshop with complete utter abandon. 

So now, let's look at the woman and child up-close.

First, there is some weird stuff. What is between the girl's bonnet and the top of her dress? 

And what is that loop by her hand?

And what is that object hanging from the mother's right side? 

These are weird and unusual things- even if you think you have a pat answer for them. But, now let's analyze the biomechanics. What is happening here is that the child is sitting on the woman's left pelvic bone, which is a common way for women to carry children. The child is straddling her, as you can see. The child's body is facing the mother, and she has her weight against the mother's pelvic bone- the ileac crest.  

As I said, it's a common way for a woman to carry a child. It effectively adds the child's weight to her own body weight and spares her relatively weak arms from supporting the load. However, usually, the woman will lean the child out, away from herself. That effectively gets a counterbalance going, and it reduces the risk of the child slipping. 

But, we're not seeing it in this case:

So, that is really unusual too. However, despite that, the girl has to be doing essentially the same thing: straddling her mother and sitting on her. And for this, the arm serves only as a strap, to lock the kid in. 

But, you can see that the girl is definitely sitting. Her anti-reflexes are not working. And it's in sharp contrast to the boy in the Altgens photo.

He is rising straight up, while she is scrunched up. On the right, you can see that her butt has found a home; she is sitting on something. She isn't rising up, she is sinking down. Her back is in a C curve. She is not supporting her own weight; she is resting. Her knee joints are flexed at 90 degrees and so are her hip joints. Her butt has something underneath it. And because she is scrunched up and sunken down, she is much lower than her mother and much lower than the Altgens boy. You see how he is rising up higher than his mother? His eyes are higher than hers. His head his higher than hers. He isn't collapsed onto his mother at all. The little girl is collapsed onto her mother. 

So: the girl is straddling her mother; the Altgens boy is NOT straddling his mother. The girl is lower than her mother; the Altgens boy is higher than his mother. The girl has her knees and hips flexed to 90 degrees (approximately), while the boy is standing straight up with complete extension. 

So, the little girl is definitely sitting on her mother, but she couldn't do it without her mother's left arm being involved. But, we don't see it. Where is the mother's left arm? 

Linda made a good suggestion, to look at pictures of Katie Holmes and her daughter Suri, whom she often carries. 

Here we have the classic thing, with the girl straddling her mother and sitting on her ileac crest, just as I said. And to keep her from slipping off that narrow perch, Katie is leaning her out, away from herself, which gets her planted securely. And note that even though the girl is straddling her and sitting on her, that Katie is using both arms to secure her:

Let's look at it again with vector lines: 

I'm showing you that on the left, we're not getting that sense of a counterbalance that is happening on the right between Katie and Suri, where one is leaning one way and the other is leaning the other way, so it's like two kids on a see-saw. But, it isn't happening on the left. 

So, how is this woman supporting the weight of this child?

If the image is legit, if it hasn't been photoshopped, then I have to assume that she was using both arms, but she momentarily removed her right arm to wave at the President, and then quickly brought it back to support the child.  If we assume that she has her left arm underneath the child's thighs, where the child is sitting on her left arm, then it is something she could only have done very briefly. And it has no bearing at all on what we see in the Altgens photo and the Towner film. We've already compared it to Altgens, so now let's compare it to Towner:

Note first that on the left, the woman and girl look photographic; they look real. On the right, the woman and baby look crude. The Towner woman has no face; no eyes, no nose, no mouth, no nothing. The Towner baby has no visible arms or legs, unlike the girl on the left. So, the crudeness of the Towner frame jumps out at us. 

Second, the woman on the left is waving her right arm while the Towner woman is waving her left arm (which we know from watching the movie, even though we can't see it here). But, notice that we can see the waving arm of the woman on the left. So, why can't we see the waving arm of the woman on the right? It is not OK that we can't see it. 

Third, on neither woman can we see the arm that is supporting the child. On the left, Kennedy's head is obstructing our view. If he weren't there, would we be able to see her left arm below the child? Theoretically. Maybe. But, on the right, there is no obstruction; so why can't we see her right arm going below or around the baby? The absence of it cannot be excused here, even theoretically. There is no reason why her right arm shouldn't be seen. Where can it be? 

 On the left, the little girl is straddling the mother, which means that she is helping the process of her staying perched where she is. But on the right, the baby isn't straddling the mother, and she is too young to be helping the process at all. We can assume that the little girl has her right arm around the mother's back or shoulder, which also helps. But, the baby on the right has no visible right arm. She certainly doesn't have it going around the mother's neck. So, there are no grounds to assume that she's doing anything with her left arm- if she has one. Plus, she's too young to be holding on. So, we really have no basis to say how the Towner Baby is being supported. What exactly is the mother doing to support her? 

And as I said, the woman on the left must have been using both arms to support that girl except for a momentary breach- and we have to assume that. But, on the right, the Towner woman is waving at the President constantly. 

So, the bottom line is that this is a very dubious and suspicious image, unlike that of the woman and baby standing next to her. 

And notice that even on the right, the woman is getting a little counterbalance going by leaning the boy out a bit and arching some herself.

So, that is a freaky image on the left with a lot of unanswered questions. But regardless, even if it is completely legit with no photoshopping- which is a big if- it still does not in any way justify what we see in the Altgens photo or the Towner film. There is no correlations to what we see in Altgens, with his very erect spine in comparison to her collapsed one. 

She is obviously sitting, and he is obviously not. And there is no correlation to what we see in Towner, with the inexcusable and inexplicable absence of any arm of the Towner woman supporting the baby, and where there is no comparable sitting of the baby on the mother, the way the girl is straddling her mother. 

So if Backes thinks this dubious image can be used to justify what we see in the Altgens photo and the Towner film, he is completely full of both shit and proscenium arches. I'll have more to say about this.