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

Joseph Backes:

"Ralphie-boy makes a claim.  Woman is not holding her child with her right arm, even though she is. He cannot support his claim with anything remotely factual.  He just makes a stupid claim.  He thinks his claim is sufficient, that it is self-supporting."  

Ralph Cinque:

Talk about the pot calling the kettle back. Backes, YOU said that the woman is holding the child with her right arm, but YOU didn't support your claim with anything remotely factual. Did you just think your claim is sufficient, that it is self-supporting? 

My claim that she is not holding the child with her right arm is based upon the fact that we can't see her right arm in the picture. 

  

Can you see her right arm, Backes? Wouldn't her right arm have to be going around the child in order to support it? Shouldn't her right arm be visible to us if it were there? Can you think of any basis by which her arm could be there but without us being able to see it? 

If you think it's possible, Backes, then you need to demonstrate it. Let's see you hold a child with just your right arm and do it in such a way that your arm is hidden.

And before you try to say that her arm is UNDERNEATH the baby which is why we can't see it, it wouldn't matter. That wouldn't be sufficient. Even if an arm below would support the weight of the baby, it wouldn't secure the baby. The baby could still pivot away from her and fall backward. There's this thing called gravity that would do that. The child would have to be secured from above or else gravity would take over. 

There is just no way she can be securing that child. That image is showing something that is physically impossible; therefore, it must be a bogus image. 

I don't make the rules, Backes. Reality does. I just enforce them on the JFK community- whether you like it or not.