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

Your mental diarrhea doesn't count for shit, Backes. The fact is that the mother is facing towards JFK, and the baby's face is nowhere to be seen.

There is no way that baby could be looking at JFK. That's true regardless of how charismatic, how affable, and how likable JFK was. You can't argue with the image. It shows what it shows. You can't pull stuff out of your ass, Backes, except for your beloved proscenium arches.

If that's a real baby, why doesn't it have any arms?

 
Maybe you, Backes, dismiss as innocent the fact that there are no discernible arms on the Towner baby. Well, guess what, Buddy? I don't. I know you are willing to bend over backwards to accommodate and make excuses for any and all JFK photographic anomalies, but I won't do it. I don't give an inch, Backes, and I don't give a shit either. And if you don't like it, you can shove those proscenium arches back up where you keep them.

And how come the Towner baby has no legs? We assume that the white at the bottom is the gloved hand of the mother, right? How come we don't we see her other arm going around the baby on top? What's preventing the Towner baby from toppling over? Don't you usually hold a baby with two arms?

  
And notice that the baby on the right looks particularly lumpen. Would you count on that baby to stay secured to your chest without an arm to hold it? Would you just let it freely balance there without securing it?

So, let's size this up: we've got a baby with no arms, no legs, and wearing a wool cap that is completely obscuring its face, to where we can't even see the side of its face.

Is it any wonder that Jason Burke described it as a white blob with an orange blob on top that doesn't even look human? I feel your pain, Jason.