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

Alright. Just as I'd hoped. Now we're getting right down to it, you dirty rotten mudder-rucker. 

The b'stard is claiming a scarf on the Towner woman based on one thing and one thing only: a slight discoloration of her skin.

But, that is ridiculous. First, the tone of her skin on her chest above the margin of her dress is perfectly consistent with skin coloring. In fact, it's more consistent with skin coloring than the darker skin of her face. 

The baby is wearing a white garment. Look at the contrast between that and the area that we are talking about. 

The issue is not that that skin is too light and consistent with a white scarf but that her facial skin is too dark. 

She's not an African-American, is she? We don't assume that, do we? So, if you are going to assume anything, you should assume that she's a white woman with clay on her face. It's the darkness of her face that departs from the norm of caucasian skin not the lighter tone of the skin at the top of her shoulder. 

That is a huge leap of absurdity to assume on the basis of that tonal contrast that she is wearing a scarf. What a plucking idiot! 

Notice that on the left side (our left) the darkness from above continues down from above. 

There's really just a small central area there that appears lighter. And on that bpete hangs his stupid theory that she is wearing a scarf.  

Plus, there are plenty of other versions of her in which all of that is lost. Here's a frame from one version of the Towner movie online which shows no contrast at all.

I got this by stopping the movie and doing a Screen Save. That star above her head is how her flicking hand got captured.

Here's a version in which she looks rather dark through and through. Not much to hang your theory on here, bpete. And this came from Robin Unger. 

You really want to claim a scarf there based on that tiny little bit of color contrast? What, was it a skin-colored scarf? Well, the Altgens woman was not wearing a skin-colored scarf. 

And there are plenty of versions of Towner in which the woman doesn't really show up at all, where it hardly looks any different from just having the tree there. Here's an example:

Not only is the scarf missing, but so is the woman. And so is the baby. 

They weren't there! They added them to the freaking film. 

They are just color that were added to the film, and when the color gets washed out, as it often does in these digital versions, there is no form underneath it. It's just a tree with two trunks which is all it ever was in the first place. 

You can think of them like a cartoon that was added to the film. That's all they are. It would be extremely easy to do today with digital technology. How they did it back then, I don't know, but I also don't know when they did it. It didn't have to be 1963 or even 1964. It could have been years later. 

The first time that we saw the DeNiro version of Lovelady at the Dallas PD - that I know of- was in the 2009 documentary Three Shots That Changed America by the History Channel.

The other Lovelady appeared as early as 1964 in the David Wolper film, Four Days in November:

That Lovelady is obviously a different man from DeNiro Lovelady above. But, was he really in the 1964 Wolper film in 1964? Or did they add it later than that knowing that nobody had a home copy with which to compare? So, I really don't know when he was stuck in there. It may have been years later. 

The JFK assassination is probably the most photographically altered event in the history of mankind. I'll say it again: The JFK assassination is probably the most photographically altered event in the history of mankind. And some of the alterations may be of recent vintage. The cover-up continues to this day. 

bpete, there's a scarf alright, and it's wrapped tightly around the neck of your credibility. You're nothing but a stupid Op with poor taste in music.