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

A word from John McAdams:

Ralph, I never follow threads that you are part of, and know I'm going 
to be sorry I asked this . . . 

But what would be the point of putting a fake image of a woman and 
baby in a photo? 

John 

Here is my response:

John, you really are out of the loop. The reason to install the Woman and Baby in Towner was to authenticate the Woman and Boy in Altgens. 

After all, we're talking about the north side of upper Elm St. It had what it had. If it contained a mother and child in one image, they'd have to be there in the other image, right? 

So, the absence of a mother and boy in the Towner film was a problem for the Altgens photo. They had to do something about it, and they did. 

Why'd they use a baby instead of a boy?

It's because it was a fake image, and a simplistic baby consisting of nothing but an orange bonnet and a white coat with no distinguishing characteristics otherwise was easier to fake then a well-developed boy. Remember, it was a motion picture, not a still image. The phony flicking of the mother's wrist as she is waving her raised left arm repeatedly and constantly at JFK while recklessly holding her beloved baby with just one arm, her right arm (which we have to presume she is doing since we can't actually see her right arm) is the only motion there is.

And there are differences in hair and clothing between the two women to rule out any possibility that they were the same woman. So, the kids don't match, nor do the mothers. 

They really don't match, and if you're going to say they are both legit, then we should see both sets of mother and child in both images. These two images cannot possibly be the same couples, and it is a death blow to the official story of the JFK assassination.