No, you stupid bastard, because the woman and child weren't there at all. They were placed there in the photograph but they weren't on the street at all. So, there are no worries about relating them to anything in the Towner film. 

But thanks for referring to them as the "woman and child" because that is what they are. But, in the Towner film, it is  woman and baby. 

There is a big difference between a 1 year old baby and a 3 year old boy- everywhere, that is, except the world of JFK.

These are not the same person, Backass. One is a 3 year old boy, and the other is a 1 year old baby. Now, you wipe the blood from your eyes, and see it. 

Great. Now we have another motorcade image of a mother and baby to look at, and this one is real.

Notice that she is using two arms to hold her baby. Notice that she is forgoing waving at the President because she's not going to risk her baby to do it. Let's compare her to the Towner Mother and Baby up close.

It may look to you like the Towner woman has got her left arm going over to support the baby, but that is NOT happening because her left arm is waving at the President. Why it looks like that, I do not know. But the other woman had got her right arm going around the baby's backside, and her left arm coming around to reinforce it. So, she has both arms securing that baby, as she foregoes waving at the President. The Towner woman has neither arm going around her baby. Her baby is apparently just levitating. Maybe the baby took lessons from Mark O'Blase'. He's into that kind of thing. 

So, the Towner Mother was there alone with her baby....

...and the only way she could have safely gotten there alone with her baby was to walk out her front door with a baby carriage with that baby in it and walk several blocks to Dealey Plaza. The mechanics of traveling by car or bus alone were too impractical and too unsafe. You can read my previous post for an exposition on that. She had to walk, and it couldn't have been very far; at the most, 5 or 6 blocks because she would have not ventured farther than that alone with that baby. So, she had to live in downtown Dallas and very close to Dealey Plaza. But, what are the chances of that?

But, of course, that's only one problem and hardly the biggest. An even bigger one is the problem of her holding that baby with one arm. And that is what she is doing throughout. Because, she is constantly waving at JFK with her left arm:

I hope you observed that her left hand is flicking constantly. It is just flicking away:  flick, flick, flick, flick, flick. It just keeps on a'flicking without taking a licking. It never stops. That means her left arm is raised above her head at all times. And it means that her left arm is NOT holding the baby. So, it is NEVER holding the baby. So that leaves only one thing left to hold the baby: HER RIGHT ARM.

But, before we get to that, did I mention that I have a new grandchild? Yes! He was born about 6 months ago, a healthy boisterous little lad. I'd give you his name, but I have too many ruthless enemies here. Anyway, I'm very involved in his life; I see a lot of him, and I help out in his care. And one thing I NEVER do is hold him with just one arm. He could slip from just one arm, and if the melon hits the ground and bursts, it's all over. So, I NEVER hold him with just one arm, and neither does his mother, nor his father, nor his grandmother. And the times that Linda has held him, she never holds him with one arm either. Nobody does. Yet, this Towner woman is, supposedly, holding her baby with just one arm and for quite a long time. But the question is: IS SHE HOLDING HIM AT ALL?  

Regardless of what we think we see above, we know from the film that she is not holding the baby with her left arm because that arm is waving at the President- constantly. So that leaves only her right arm. But, where is it? We don't see it. To hold the baby with her right arm, wouldn't the arm have to go around the baby, to encircle the baby, and therefore be visible to us? How could she be holding the baby without going the distance around the baby? She would need to be ENCLOSING the baby in her arm, but she's not doing that because if she were doing it, we would see it. Do you think that maybe she has her arm underneath the baby somehow? No, that is not plausible, and it is not possible. But, even if it were plausible, it would not prevent the baby from pivoting away from her. She would still need to have her other arm above to stabilize the baby- to keep it from falling away from her. Not down, but away, where it rocks backward. That's what I'm talking about. To prevent that, you need an arm above as well.  

Now, if the baby were old enough that it could hold onto her, the mother, that would make a difference. Say if the baby had both arms wrapped tightly around the mother's neck. It would still be risky to rely on that, and I wouldn't do it, but at least it would be something. But, you can see that this baby does not have her arms around her mother's neck. In fact, we can't even see any arms on this baby. Seriously, the baby appears to be armless. So, maybe it's a Thalidomide baby. You think? In any case, the baby is definitely NOT holding onto the mother, and we see no evidence that the mother is holding onto the baby. So, what is securing the baby? What is holding her up? What is keeping her from falling? How does any of this work?  

It does not work. It doesn't compute. It isn't real. It wasn't happening. That mother and baby are just techno-art that were added to the film. They were trying to authenticate the Altgens Mother and Boy who were added to hide the face of Jack Ruby.

That's what they were trying to duplicate, although why they thought a baby could pass for a boy, I do not know. 

Notice the other differences: the Altgens mother is dressed in white, the Towner mother in black. The Altgens boy looks to be about 3 and is dressed in a denim jacket. The Towner baby looks to be about 1 and is dressed in swaddling clothes. The Towner mother has her hair flowing down her shoulders; the Altgens mother has her hair pulled back or cut very short. They are not the same woman, and a 3 year old boy is not a 1 year old baby. 

But, here's the clincher: at least the Altgens pair were real. They weren't there, but they were somewhere. But, the Towner mother and baby were not real. They did not exist. They weren't anywhere. They are just techno-art, fabricated out of nothing. 

Is there any way around any of this? No, there isn't. The Towner Mother and Baby really are fake. Completely and totally fake. And this about as Machiavellian as it gets. Not even Stalin or the Nazis ever resorted to anything quite like this.  

About the Towner Mother and Baby, it's obvious that they are there alone, so how did they get to Dealey Plaza?

If somebody were with them, like the father, we'd see him, right? So, how did they get there? Did she drive them there in a car? I don't think so. Car restraints for babies were hardly available at all in 1963. Here's an article about it:

http://www.babble.com/baby/history-of-the-car-seat/ 

Did they take the bus? Well, she couldn't have brought a baby carriage onto a bus. Remember, babies need stuff, stuff you have to take with you: food, bottles, diapers, wipes, etc. Do you think she settled for a bag? But wait. If she had no carriage (and we don't see one) and she carried a bag, then it means she would have had to carry the baby in one arm and the bag in the other- all the way the whole distance from whenever she started. Who in their right mind would be that reckless with a baby? Most people have enough sense to use two hands to hold a baby AT ALL TIMES. Yet, she's standing there, alone with a baby, holding it in one arm, while she waves continuously at the President.

The truth is that the ONLY way she could have had any practical means to accomplish this was if she lived near Dealey Plaza, and she could start out from her house on foot with a baby carriage and just pushed it there with the baby in it. You involve ANY kind of motorized transportation, and she can't do it alone. Not a car, not a bus, not a cab, not a train. Nothing. Forget about it. 

So, what are the odds that she lived within walking distance of Dealey Plaza? The odds are so slim, it's not worth considering. The logistics of her being there at that spot at that time, alone with that baby, just don't work. 

And by the way, Robin Unger got it wrong. It's the other guy in a Fedora Hat who corresponds to the Jack Ruby figure in the Altgens photo, the one in front of the monument. 

  
It's the guy to our left, not the guy in the middle of the picture. Robin never was any good at this kind of  thing. 

The Towner Woman and baby are fake. They weren't there. They were added to the film after it was taken. And they weren't real at all. They didn't exist anywhere. They are techno-art. 

Backes, you haven't debunked anything. And, the Altgens photo is one of the most grossly altered photos there has ever been. Dr. David Wrone said so in his 2003 book, calling it "crudely altered." That's putting it mildly. 

Here is the Anomalies page of the OIC website which lists 7 alterations in and around the doorway. 

http://www.oswald-innocent.com/anomalies.html

And let's remember that the number of alterations that I need to prove is exactly one. If they altered that photograph even one time, it proves corruption, fraud, and vice. But, all 7 are solid as a rock, not only not debunked but never seriously challenged. 

What have you debunked, Backes??? NOTHING! All you've done is shown that your mind is bunk. You're an ignoramus. You still haven't found the image of the "other African-American" you claim was there. And, you're too stupid to realize that you can't make the claim without the image. And falling back on a letter from a guy who thinks Umbrella Man used his umbrella as a gun to shoot a flechette at JFK is just plain stupid. You and Richard E. Sprague are of like mind and like derangement. 

Here's a letter I just received from a supporter:

From:	Nelson Loftin.
Sent:	Sat 5/31/14 3:37 PM
To:	Dr. Ralph Cinque

Dr. Cinque:

I think you're doing an excellent job on your blog at debunking the fake photos and videos. The truth, as the saying goes, supports itself (to a degree) simply by virtue of being true. If these pics and videos are all genuine, why are the Ops going nuts?

Nelson

Meanwhile, you resort to calling Oswald-accusers, "Sir". How pathetic. And despicable. And all along, the idea of Oswald being in the doorway doesn't bother you a bit. 

 

Backes, I couldn't care less about being banned from JFK forums. I consider it a badge of honor. I'm well-liked by the people I respect and I am despised by the people I detest, and that is fine by me. Hey, I'm all about fighting- any which way I have to- in order to win this. When I have letters of thanks from David Wrone and Vincent Salandria and Mark Lane and others- as I do- I know that I am faithfully serving the cause of JFK truth. I am A-OK with my reputation, so don't you worry about it. You worry about your own reputation because it is in shambles. You are a laughing stock, a clown, and a buffoon. And, you happen to be a very stupid man, which everyone knows. 

It's very simple, Backes. You just have to get a woman and child and have the woman hold the child just like the woman in the Altgens photo. Then you take their picture and show it to us. 

However, the thing is that she can't just hold the child any old way. You have to duplicate the arrangement that we see in the Altgens photo. It has to look exactly the same. 

Now, that is the ONLY way you can prove the authenticity of the image. And unless and until you do that, you need to shut the fuck up and stick to what you know best, which is stuffing proscenium arches. 

She and the kid are fake, Backes, and I believe they were put into that photograph to stop anyone from recognizing Jack Ruby. 

So, why would they want to depict this action as a series of "reflexes" where nerves were synapsing at the spinal cord and sending messages to his muscles- operating him like a marionete?

Essentially, they were saying that he was one of these:

The reason is because of what Kennedy was doing, which is: REACHING FOR HIS THROAT because he was shot in the throat. The man was struggling to breathe, and he could feel that bullet in his throat. He was trying to dislodge it, to cough it up. He was loosening his tie. It wasn't a series of stretch reflexes, and it certainly wasn't a "Thorburn position." How stupid. Anyone who's had a freshman course in Neurology knows it wasn't that. 

The bloodied try to say that because Lovelady is facing to our left that we can't see the open sprawl of his shirt. But, that is ridiculous, as you can see on Oswald. He's standing at just about the same angle as Gorilla Man, and yet, we can still see that his shirt is open and his t-shirt is exposed. It is insane to think that Gorilla Man could be Doorman.

One has his shirt sprawled open and the other not.
One has his shirt sprawled open and the other not.
One has his shirt sprawled open and the other not.
One has his shirt sprawled open and the other not.
One has his shirt sprawled open and the other not.
One has his shirt sprawled open and the other not.
One has his shirt sprawled open and the other not.
One has his shirt sprawled open and the other not.
One has his shirt sprawled open and the other not.
One has his shirt sprawled open and the other not.
One has his shirt sprawled open and the other not.
One has his shirt sprawled open and the other not.

Here's a view of the Altgens doorway from farther back:

What would you say about the pattern of Doorman's shirt? Would you say it looks plaid? Of course, you wouldn't. 

And even when you come in close, it doesn't look plaid; but it does have a splotchy contrast that is hard to define.

Well, according to Mrs. Lovelady, FBI agents showed up at their home the evening of November 23 with an enlargement of Doorman that was "as big as a desk". Imagine how much distortion that entailed. But, did the FBI agents recognize it as distortion? Of course not. 

These were the same numbnuts who posed Lovelady in the clothes he wore on 11/22 and took his picture, and had him unbutton the shirt so as to look like Doorman, but without realizing that it removed him from the running as Doorman. 

 So, it's no surprise that they would see distortion in the blow-up of Doorman's shirt and not recognize it as such.   

And, besides taking his picture, they even put it in writing:
"He stated that he wore a red and white striped shirt and blue jeans."  It is a categorical statement; it means what it means. 

With the above, the genie is out of the bottle, and there is no getting her back in. Lovelady said he wore the short-sleeved striped shirt; he showed up in those clothes on 2/29/64, and he unbuttoned the shirt- no doubt because they told him to do so. 

David Lifton suggested that Lovelady lied about this because "he wanted to distance himself from Oswald." David, people don't lie to the FBI. They know that is not a good idea. They know it is not in their best interest. Lovelady said it because Lovelady wore it- the short-sleeved, red and white striped shirt.  

Backes, this guy on the right wasn't Lovelady. He is anatomically different from Lovelady; therefore, he wasn't Lovelady. 

The issue of whether he looks like a gorilla is not really the point. Since he's not Lovelady, we had to call him something, and Jim Fetzer coined the name "Gorilla Man", which I happen to agree with. In fact, my first choice was "Neanderthal Man" but Jim being the Chairman and all, we went with his idea. But, the point is that he was a man, but he was not Lovelady. 

Now, you can spend your whole life trying to say that A is B, or trying to stuff square pegs into round holes (which, in your case can be taken literally because of what you do with proscenium arches) but it's never going to turn Gorilla Man into Billy Lovelady. They have different features, large and small. He's not Lovelady. He's not. He really isn't. 

This is the scene in Arthur Miller's A View From The Bridge in which Marco demonstrates his strength by lifting a chair with one arm: grasping it by one leg and from the very bottom. He was sending a message to the other big guy Eddie to lay off his cousin Rudolofo who was courting Eddie's adopted daughter Catherine. In the above performance, they must have used an exceptionally light chair that was specifically made or adapted for the performance. But, here's what Joseph Backes would say:

"Yes, the man is still Superman. How? How could he support the weight of a chair? A man, a man lifting a chair? What, is he Superman? Only people who think that men are Supermen would believe that a man, a man, is lifting a chair." 

Backes, it's not that he's lifting it; it's how he's lifting it. And it's a shame that rational thought is such heavy lifting for you. 

No, Backes. It's not that she's holding him at all. It's that she's holding him with JUST ONE ARM and without the least bit of leaning, where she is holding him straight up, perfectly vertical, where he is parallel to her, and all his weight has to be sitting on her one arm. That's what I'm talking about.

He is not being held by anyone. He is standing. His anti-gravity reflexes are working. And they couldn't be if he was dangling in someone's arms.

You know, Backes, your buddy, or I should say: partner in crime, Hank Sienzant was smart enough to admit that the boy is definitely standing- on something. Hank suggested that he was standing on a car bumper- which is ridiculous because nobody could stand that straight on a car bumper, and I urged Hank to go out and try it. (And note that "Hank Sienzant" is as real a name as "Lance Uppercut".)  But, at least Hank gave in on an important point, that the boy is definitely standing.   

The Dungeon Master is back, and now he's faulting me for calling the contrast we see on Doorman's shirt "haze and distortion." 

Well, don't forget "light reflection" because it was a very worn shirt with thin shiny areas that reflected the light, and some of the apparent contrast is light reflection. 

It is true that I deny that the contrast we see on Doorman's shirt was any kind of design pattern on the shirt. But, let's assume for a moment- just for the sake of argument- that it is, that a shirt manufacturer actually made a shirt with the pattern that is visible to us on Doorman's shirt. It is still NOT the pattern we see on Gorilla Man's shirt. His shirt is marked by discreet and distinct vertical and horizontal lines which cross, forming boxes. Harold Weisberg referred to the boxes as "checks", and he meant the same thing, boxes. Harold Weisberg told Mrs. Lovelady to her face (that is, over the phone) that Doorman's shirt has no checks. In fact, it doesn't even have any vertical lines. In fact, it doesn't even have any horizontal lines, at least, not any that correspond to what we see on Gorilla Man. Look at the two up-close.

There is no way you can construe talking points that will equate those two patterns. One is a vague, splotchy mess, while the other is a distinct, defined, geometric pattern. There is simply no correlation between the two.

And remember who Lance Uppercut is- besides being a sick fuck who celebrates cruel, sadistic torture.

He is also a guy with no knowledge whatsoever of human biomechanics and kinesiology.

Notice how Lance tries to match up the horizontal lines on Doorman's shirt with Lovelady's except that they aren't horizontal. He's got them going down diagonally, as if Doorman is standing like the woman on the left, with slanting shoulders yet a vertical head/neck. But, we know Doorman wasn't standing like that in the doorway because nobody would and nobody could. Below, I demonstrate what happens when you try to lean. You take your head along with you. 

Doorman wasn't leaning at all. His shoulder was cut off. Here's the complete Doorman on the right. 

Oswald was just standing there watching the motorcade like a normal person with his hands clasped in front of his body. And the proof of the pudding is that we can also see him doing it in the Wiegman film, which was taken at the same time. 

And notice that there is no pattern on his shirt at all. So, how could he be Lovelady? And look at that open sprawl. That was Oswald's sprawl. Lovelady didn't have it. 

That is a huge, gaping, open sprawl on the left. How could anyone thing that Gorilla Man was a match to it?

Lance Uppercut is a very stupid and ignorant man. And he is a bloodied man- from what he does in the dungeon and from what he does here in lying about the JFK assassination. He is very bloodied. 

Backass put up this image of Gorilla Man, although he refuses to call him that. Maybe he thinks that in this capture, he doesn't look like a gorilla. Yeah, he still does, Backes.

I put Backes' name there so that we don't lose track of the fact that Backes has approved this particular rendition. 

Now, let's compare him to FBI Lovelady:

I am keeping it relatively small because if I make it larger, Backes will say I distorted it. So, we note on the left that FBI Lovelady has a much more vertical forehead, whereas Gorilla Man on the right has a much more sloped forehead. The ski-slope forehead is one of the cardinal gorilla features; hence, his name. 

We also note that their ears are vastly different.

We note that Lovlady's neck is mostly vertical and longer while Gorilla Man's has a distinctly forward inclination and less length in his neck. He has a shorter neck. 

The guy on the right has got Forward Neck Syndrome; the guy on the left does not. 

Lovelady has got better hair coverage than Gorilla Man, who has more recession and a larger "lake" of baldness in the crown area. 

We are getting the impression of a much thicker, more prominent chest on Gorilla Man than on Lovelady. 

We note that Lovelady on the left has got a longer, more prominent nose than Gorilla Man and a better developed chin. 

Gorilla Man had longer hair in back, with a clean neck and a squared off line at the bottom in back as opposed to a more tapered cut on Lovelady. You can tell that they had different barbers who cut the hair differently in back. 

All in all, there is no doubt that even when we use the version of Gorilla Man that Backes likes, he is no match to Lovelady. 

Backes, you can't just say that he's Lovelady because you want him to be Lovelady. Reality doesn't give a shit about what you want- and neither do I.

Gorilla Man wasn't Lovelady- not the version that Joseph Backes says is right, not the version that Robin Unger says is right, and not any other version. He wasn't Lovelady, period. But, he did look like a gorilla. So, Gorilla Man he remains- even your version of him, Backes. And if you don't like it, then take it out on one of your proscenium arches. 

If we were talking about ANYTHING ELSE except the JFK assassination, there is no way that anyone who would say that these two men were the same man. Not only does the comparison of their specific anatomical features rule it out- and remember that it takes only one disconnect to rule it out- but even the general impression that you get of each of them are miles apart. What I am saying is that, even intuitively, you know they are different men. 

There is a term in Medicine "physiognomy" which refers to the visceral impression, the gut feeling, that you get about a person's character from their physical features, particularly their face. So, if you had to run into one or the other of these two guys alone in a dark, abandoned alley at midnight, which one would you rather run into? 

The JFK assassination world is a bizarro world, and this is as good an example of it as any. I understand why they want these two men to be the same man. It's because if they're not, it destroys everything about the official story. If they're not the same man, then it was Oswald in the doorway. And if it's Oswald in the doorway, then every word of the Warren Report, the HSCA Final Report, including the stupid dalliances of Robert Groden, are rendered totally, utterly moot, pointless, and dead. It drives a spike right through the heart of JFK officialdom. 

And so they fight it, and if they have to say that two vastly dissimilar men are the same man, they will. If they have to say that a man was a woman, they will. And if they have to say that physically impossible things happened- such as a woman holding a baby up with no arms, where she is waving her left arm over her head and her right arm is nowhere to be seen, and yet the baby is, somehow, being supported:

In the Towner film, this woman is waving at the President with her left are CONSTANTLY. She is doing it over and over again for as long as we see her in the film, which is about 6 seconds. She never stops. She never puts her arm down. She is just constantly waving. 

Therefore, that thing that looks like a "halo" or a bald spot on top of her head is actually her left hand. Her left arm is raised waving at JFK. See for yourself. 

 Do you see that flicking left hand? She is waving constantly at the President with her left hand. She is- supposedly- holding that baby with just one arm for all that time just so that she can keep waving at the President. 

So, getting back to the picture then, remember that it is supposedly a still frame from that movie, from what we are seeing above. So, we know that her left arm must be above her head waving at JFK. 

So, why does it look like she has another left arm that is coming across from below to support the baby. Doesn't that look like an arm with a glove on the hand? And doesn't it look like the top part of her arm is coming down from her left shoulder? Why is that "halo" the only part of her left upper extremity that we see going up? Why don't we see her left arm actually raised, like this?

Shouldn't it look something like that? 

But, regardless of what we see and what we don't see in the still frame, WE KNOW THAT HER LEFT ARM IS WAVING. And therefore, she cannot be holding the baby with it. 

So that leaves only her right arm to be holding the baby. 

 But, there is no sign of her right arm holding the baby. It would be very precarious to try to hold that baby with just her right arm, but if she did it anyway, the only possible way to do it would be to get her arm AROUND the baby, which means that we should see it. It means that we have to be able to see it, or otherwise, she's not doing it. Well, study the picture and see if you can see see her right arm. 

That is a grotesque image. It is a flagrantly fraudulent image. It is sickening and nauseating that anybody would try to defend this crap as legitimate. They put that phony image into the Towner movie, and the purpose was to confirm and authenticate the phony Woman and Boy they put into the Altgens photo:

She would have to be Superwoman to hold that boy perfectly vertical, as she appears to be doing. You may not realize how hard that would be to do, but she indeed would have to be Superwoman to do it. And the boy would have to be Superboy because with just her one arm underneath him, the balancing would fall upon him. He'd be perched there, and he'd have to keep himself from falling. The whole thing is just plain preposterous. That boy is standing- somewhere. Nobody is holding him up. He is holding himself up. He is as posturally autonomous as any person can be, young or old. 

Ah, but for the vile, wicked wretches who defend this evil crap... Oh, but there will be a reckoning. That's one thing I do believe. There will definitely be a reckoning. 

Backes, I am just showing them the pictures and asking them to use their own judgment, based on what they see, as to whether they are the same man. And based on what they see, they say no; they are not the same man. It's between them and the pictures, and I have nothing to do with it. They are not fools, Backes, but you are.