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

This is a frame, the same frame from the Wiegman film. But obviously, it looks very different, left to right.

Which one is valid? And how did the different frames come to exist? Was there any subterfuge involved?

On the left, it shows an older woman who appears to be large in the bust. On the right, it looks like a younger woman holding a baby. Is it the same baby from Altgens6?

Please, nobody tell me that that boy on the left, who is about ready to start playing t-ball, is the same as that helpless baby on the right.  Could it be the same as the Mother and Baby from Towner?

Well, it's closer, but no, I wouldn't equate them either. The Towner baby is in a sparkling, jet-white coat, whereas the other is wearing something darker. We don't know what color it was since it's a black and white image, but it definitely wasn't jet-white.

Isn't that sufficient to rule them out? Well, how about the fact that the hair of the two mothers are very different, where it's coming down over her shoulders on the left and no sign of it on the right?  Does that suffice?

But, let's get back to the primary question which is: which of the two Wiegman images is real?

How are we going to decide which one of them is the real thing? Are we going to go by testimonies? I sure hope not because that means nothing to me. I am only interested in analyzing the two images. That is the ONLY thing that matters in my book.

Isn't it reasonable to assume that if one image was either altered or distorted that it would LOOK WORSE? So, isn't it reasonable to assume that whichever one looks PHOTOGRAPHICALLY WORSE is probably the false one?

So, which of these two images has more "problems" photographically speaking?

Well, the only photographic problem that has been suggested for the one on the left is that the legs and feet of the women is obscured by that thing on the lower right. But, what that thing is is just the front of the car.

So, that's all that is is the car. Therefore, this image really doesn't have any photographic problems. But what about the other one?

This one really has problems. It looks like the mother is wearing a cone-shaped hat, but it's really the scarf of the woman behind her whose face got washed out. Therefore, we are not seeing any of the face or head of the mother, and that is weird. Is that her left arm securing the baby? But, it's too thin and shriveled to be her arm. The baby's head is too big for its body. Her right arm is too low to be providing any support for the baby. And since her head is totally obscured to us, doesn't that mean that she can't see a thing herself? Why would she hold the baby directly in front of her face? Wouldn't she hold it to one or the other of her shoulders, enabling us to see her face? Obviously, she is not concerned about us seeing her face, but she would be concerned about her seeing her environment.

So, is that a young woman holding a baby or that is a big-breasted older woman?

I say that it is a big-breasted older lady. They couldn't possibly have faked that on the left, and there is no conceivable reason why they would have wanted to. There is no possible way they could have converted what you see on the right into what you see on the left. No way, no how, no chance, and especially not in 1963. Those people were really there.

Was the image on the right faked with the mother and baby? No, of course not. Why would they go to the trouble of doing that? To gain what? It really is a case in which distortion resulted in a weird image that is reminding some people of what a mother holding a baby would look like. Think of it like when kids see cloud formations, they'll sometimes read a visual into it that obviously isn't there. It's just their imagination at work. Well, the people who see a mother and baby on the right, are putting their imagination to work. It was really an older busty woman. That really is all there is to it.

The image on the left is the real image from the Wiegman film, however none of the versions of the Wiegman film that are available online look anywhere near as clear, crisp, sharp, and detailed as that.  In a word, they don't look as GOOD as that. But the existence of that frame tells me that somewhere there must be a whole intact Wiegman film that shows everything as good as that, including the first second of the film which shows Lee Harvey Oswald standing at the top center of the doorway. And that is what makes that frame important- that it could lead us to a clear image of LHO standing in the doorway.