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

bpete seems to think that this is a clearer version of the Woman in Altgens, so let's go with it. I had to remove some printing from it, but it doesn't matter. We're only interested in the so-called scarf. 

It could be a scarf, but if it is, she isn't wearing it effectively. The purpose of a scarf is to keep the neck warm, to wrap it around the neck, and I mean in a circle. That's what traps heat- not what she is doing. Of course, it was sunny and warm, so there was no need for a scarf at all. But in that case, wouldn't she take it off? 

What is she wearing beneath the scarf. Is she wearing a slinky black dress like the woman in Towner? If she's not, that's a problem. Well look below the scarf. I'll draw an arrow.

That's below the scarf but it's part of her, right? What else? It's not part of the boy. It's not part of the black woman. It has to be part of the woman we're talking about. That isn't black. In fact, it's only slightly darker than the scarf itself. 

What are the chances that that woman is wearing a slinky black dress under there? I would say slim to none. Make that none. To my eyes, the Woman and Boy look like they are dressed for some outdoor activity. You can see that the boy is looking down at something in front of him. Something is happening in front of them, and I don't mean the motorcade; I mean wherever they really were. It's like they are watching somebody in front of them do something. And it appears to be a very outdoorsy kind of thing that would not call for a slinky black dress. A game? A project? Someone baiting a hook? Who knows. But definitely not something calling for a slinky black dress.  

And what is that bone underneath the arrow I drew? I call it a bone because it looks like a bone, but I have no idea what it is. 

Let's see how Martin Hindrichs handled it in the colorizing that he did:

Martin didn't colorize the bone, and it's probably because, like me, he didn't know what it was. How can you know what color to give something unless you know what it is? 

Then bpete offers this as confirmation of the same thing on the Towner woman:

You know something: he's not being very accurate there. It's really only in the center that it's lighter. On the edges, it's about as dark as it is above. The area of lightness is really very small and limited. Let's look at it without the lines. 

If that was a white scarf, why is the left side so dark? The area of lightness is really quite limited. 

If we grant- for the sake argument- that the area inside the circle is lighter, what about the area to the left of it? Isn't it about as dark as the area above, which is supposedly a face with no features? 

So, what kind of scarf was this? Was it the same color as her face except for one small part of it? And what does it possibly have in common with what we see of the Altgens woman?

What about those two match? NOTHING! Absolutely nothing. How can bpete contrive that the scarf he describes on the Altgens woman is also apparent on the Towner woman? Does he not understand that they have to be the same? Exactly the same? These aren't remotely the same.

This is a joke. bpete is defending the indefensible. Talk about trying to force a square peg in a round hole. This is more like trying to squeeze an elephant into a thimble.  

Why would he even try to do this? How embarrassing! But you see, he is a freaking whore. He is paid to defend this shit. You think anybody is going to pay him to make that loud noise he calls music? Of course not. So, this is his day job. This is how he pays the bills. But, he's just too stupid to know when to quit. He conjures up this shit without thinking it through, without making sure that it's water-tight. Water-tight? This boat didn't float on Day 1.