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

Backes would rather talk about this other woman, on our left. 

I didn't overlook her, Backes, but there is a whole heck of a lot to be said about her, and it was getting late last night, so I put it off. But now we'll get into her, and I am really going to roll up my sleeves. This is either going to be a very long post OR it's going to take multiple posts. 

First, I want to know where did this image come from, Backes. You're big on providing sources. So, what is the source of this image? Is it a photograph or the frame from a film? Who took it? Where was the motorcade at the time? Tell me everything you can about this image. 

You won't cooperate? That's OK. I found it myself. It's from David Von Pein. And he says it wasn't discovered until 2013.

On his site, DVP just says that it and two other color photos surfaced in 2013 and that the motorcade was at Turtle Creek at the time. But, he doesn't say where they came from other. They are mighty good pictures: the color, the details. Hmmm. But, surfaced from whom? from where? and under what circumstances? Peinhead doesn't explain.  And recognize something else: since the images had never surfaced before, it means that ANYTHING could be done to them, and no one would have any other version to compare it to. It gave them a blank check to photoshop with complete utter abandon. 

So now, let's look at the woman and child up-close.

First, there is some weird stuff. What is between the girl's bonnet and the top of her dress? 

And what is that loop by her hand?

And what is that object hanging from the mother's right side? 

These are weird and unusual things- even if you think you have a pat answer for them. But, now let's analyze the biomechanics. What is happening here is that the child is sitting on the woman's left pelvic bone, which is a common way for women to carry children. The child is straddling her, as you can see. The child's body is facing the mother, and she has her weight against the mother's pelvic bone- the ileac crest.  

As I said, it's a common way for a woman to carry a child. It effectively adds the child's weight to her own body weight and spares her relatively weak arms from supporting the load. However, usually, the woman will lean the child out, away from herself. That effectively gets a counterbalance going, and it reduces the risk of the child slipping. 

But, we're not seeing it in this case:

So, that is really unusual too. However, despite that, the girl has to be doing essentially the same thing: straddling her mother and sitting on her. And for this, the arm serves only as a strap, to lock the kid in. 

But, you can see that the girl is definitely sitting. Her anti-reflexes are not working. And it's in sharp contrast to the boy in the Altgens photo.

He is rising straight up, while she is scrunched up. On the right, you can see that her butt has found a home; she is sitting on something. She isn't rising up, she is sinking down. Her back is in a C curve. She is not supporting her own weight; she is resting. Her knee joints are flexed at 90 degrees and so are her hip joints. Her butt has something underneath it. And because she is scrunched up and sunken down, she is much lower than her mother and much lower than the Altgens boy. You see how he is rising up higher than his mother? His eyes are higher than hers. His head his higher than hers. He isn't collapsed onto his mother at all. The little girl is collapsed onto her mother. 

So: the girl is straddling her mother; the Altgens boy is NOT straddling his mother. The girl is lower than her mother; the Altgens boy is higher than his mother. The girl has her knees and hips flexed to 90 degrees (approximately), while the boy is standing straight up with complete extension. 

So, the little girl is definitely sitting on her mother, but she couldn't do it without her mother's left arm being involved. But, we don't see it. Where is the mother's left arm? 

Linda made a good suggestion, to look at pictures of Katie Holmes and her daughter Suri, whom she often carries. 

Here we have the classic thing, with the girl straddling her mother and sitting on her ileac crest, just as I said. And to keep her from slipping off that narrow perch, Katie is leaning her out, away from herself, which gets her planted securely. And note that even though the girl is straddling her and sitting on her, that Katie is using both arms to secure her:

Let's look at it again with vector lines: 

I'm showing you that on the left, we're not getting that sense of a counterbalance that is happening on the right between Katie and Suri, where one is leaning one way and the other is leaning the other way, so it's like two kids on a see-saw. But, it isn't happening on the left. 

So, how is this woman supporting the weight of this child?

If the image is legit, if it hasn't been photoshopped, then I have to assume that she was using both arms, but she momentarily removed her right arm to wave at the President, and then quickly brought it back to support the child.  If we assume that she has her left arm underneath the child's thighs, where the child is sitting on her left arm, then it is something she could only have done very briefly. And it has no bearing at all on what we see in the Altgens photo and the Towner film. We've already compared it to Altgens, so now let's compare it to Towner:

Note first that on the left, the woman and girl look photographic; they look real. On the right, the woman and baby look crude. The Towner woman has no face; no eyes, no nose, no mouth, no nothing. The Towner baby has no visible arms or legs, unlike the girl on the left. So, the crudeness of the Towner frame jumps out at us. 

Second, the woman on the left is waving her right arm while the Towner woman is waving her left arm (which we know from watching the movie, even though we can't see it here). But, notice that we can see the waving arm of the woman on the left. So, why can't we see the waving arm of the woman on the right? It is not OK that we can't see it. 

Third, on neither woman can we see the arm that is supporting the child. On the left, Kennedy's head is obstructing our view. If he weren't there, would we be able to see her left arm below the child? Theoretically. Maybe. But, on the right, there is no obstruction; so why can't we see her right arm going below or around the baby? The absence of it cannot be excused here, even theoretically. There is no reason why her right arm shouldn't be seen. Where can it be? 

 On the left, the little girl is straddling the mother, which means that she is helping the process of her staying perched where she is. But on the right, the baby isn't straddling the mother, and she is too young to be helping the process at all. We can assume that the little girl has her right arm around the mother's back or shoulder, which also helps. But, the baby on the right has no visible right arm. She certainly doesn't have it going around the mother's neck. So, there are no grounds to assume that she's doing anything with her left arm- if she has one. Plus, she's too young to be holding on. So, we really have no basis to say how the Towner Baby is being supported. What exactly is the mother doing to support her? 

And as I said, the woman on the left must have been using both arms to support that girl except for a momentary breach- and we have to assume that. But, on the right, the Towner woman is waving at the President constantly. 

So, the bottom line is that this is a very dubious and suspicious image, unlike that of the woman and baby standing next to her. 

And notice that even on the right, the woman is getting a little counterbalance going by leaning the boy out a bit and arching some herself.

So, that is a freaky image on the left with a lot of unanswered questions. But regardless, even if it is completely legit with no photoshopping- which is a big if- it still does not in any way justify what we see in the Altgens photo or the Towner film. There is no correlations to what we see in Altgens, with his very erect spine in comparison to her collapsed one. 

She is obviously sitting, and he is obviously not. And there is no correlation to what we see in Towner, with the inexcusable and inexplicable absence of any arm of the Towner woman supporting the baby, and where there is no comparable sitting of the baby on the mother, the way the girl is straddling her mother. 

So if Backes thinks this dubious image can be used to justify what we see in the Altgens photo and the Towner film, he is completely full of both shit and proscenium arches. I'll have more to say about this.