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

In response to bpete, I say that the age difference between these two children is self-evident, that any rational person can see that one is a baby and the other is a child. So, let's label exactly what bpete is claiming:

 Hey, I'm willing to let the collage speak for itself and let rational minds decide which one of us is right. I'm saying that it's perfectly visible that the child on the left is substantially older than the child on the right. 

Now, as for gender, I'm just assuming that he's a boy and not a girl, and there is a basis for it. Usually girls have longer hair- long enough to not fit entirely under a wool cap. Why would the girl tuck all of her hair inside the cap? She wouldn't; she would just cover her head with the cap and let her hair flow down. And, the kind of jean-jacket the child is wearing is more often worn by boys than by girls, and especially then. So, I think the probability is great that the child was a boy, and I'm willing to make the presumption. But, if it was a girl, so what? 

Then bpete goes on to try to account for the white/black difference in dress between the woman by saying that the Altgens woman is wearing a scarf apparently over her black dress. But, if that's true, then why doesn't it look the same on the Towner woman because it was the same moment in time? Then bpete says that you can see the white scarf on the Towner woman, but that is a lie. Look:

There is no white scarf there. Is he referring to the top of her chest as a scarf? How? It isn't white; it's flesh-colored. And no wrapped scarf could look so neat and even and tidy. Is bpete really making that presumption and expecting people to swallow it? Unbe-m-o-freaking-lievable. If she is wearing a scarf, it's more like a tourniquet. 

No, bpete, that is not a scarf, you dumb pluck. 

But, at least bpete admits that that Towner baby is not Peggy Hawkins' 4 year old son. bpete was very content to post the image stipulating that the child was a baby, and he did so without qualifying it, without issuing any disclaimer denouncing it. It wasn't Peggy Hawkins' 4 year old son and it wasn't anybody's 4 year old son, and that's because it's a baby. 

And below, it doesn't matter whose images they are. Regardless, it shows that the geometry is the same whether the mother is in the picture or not. On the right, she is standing in front of the tree, but SHE HAS THE SAME FORM AS THE TREE ON THE LEFT. The black configuration is the same in both images, which I would describe like the letter H. bpete doesn't even try to explain it.  

Finally, bpete resorts to spewing bull shit to claim that a man who is clearly on the other side of the TSBD entrance is also in front of the obelisk in another photo. What a pile of horseshit. And, believe it or not, he is still claiming that this sinewy old geezer is this soft petite young woman. 

Only in the realm of JFK do you hear such nonsense. Nowhere else.