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

Let's continue now discussing this unusual image.

Again, I would like to know where the whole image came from.

So, it was under lock and key for 49 years? In a safe? Where? By whom? And how did it "surface"? David Von Pein isn't saying. 

But getting back to the mother and child:

Her left arm isn't going around the girl since we can't see it there, and that means that it must be directly underneath the girl. And she couldn't do that for very long- her arm would give out. So, if this is legit, then it was a momentary thing, and then her right arm went right back to supporting the girl, perhaps under her left thigh. 

But, I want to point out that there's a difference between holding a child (like this) with one arm and a baby (like in Towner) with one arm. Intuitively, you know that you have to use two arms with a baby. And I am speaking from current experience with my baby grandson. And it's not a matter of strength; it's a matter of grip and losing it- the baby slipping away. In the above picture, if that woman were to drop that girl, it would be bad, but it wouldn't be life or death. But, a baby dropped on the hard pavement could hit its head and die.  

 So, because the little girl is effectively hugging her mother with her legs and probably has her right arm going around her back, she is contributing to the perch. So, if the mother removed her right arm momentarily in order to wave, she could have done it, but not for very long. She could have done it briefly and then quickly put it back, and that is apparently what happened here. Believe me: she had to get her right arm back underneath that girl pronto.

So, on the left, we can't see either arm supporting the girl, but we assume that her left arm is underneath the girl and that we'd see it if not for JFK's head. But, on the right, we know that her left arm is being waved above her head, and there is nothing obstructing our view on the other side. So, why can't we see her right arm coming around nestled under the baby's butt? 

  
There is no excuse for not seeing her right arm. It is a Smoking Gun of the fraudulence of the image. There is no excuse for not seeing her left arm going up. It is also a Smoking Gun of the fraudulence of the image. In fact, if you look at it closely, you can see that her left arm is coming down. I'll put an arrow to the point of her left shoulder. 

Now, that is her left shoulder. It is the outside of her left shoulder. But, if her arm were raised overhead, what would we be seeing? Wouldn't we be seeing her arm pit?

 Look at them side by side:

OK, so here is what it means: It means that there is a conflict, a contradiction between what we see in the Towner movie and what we see in the Towner frame of the Mother and Baby. In the movie, the mother is waiving her elevated left hand constantly. But, in the frame, her left arm doesn't appear to be elevated at all. In fact, if anything, it looks like it is coming down and going over to support the baby. But, she is waving it constantly in the film. 

So, where did that still frame come from? It is disassociated from the film. It does not occur in the film. It is an altered photoshopped image. And it is a Smoking Gun that the whole thing is fake. She isn't real. The baby isn't real. They are both techno-art that were added to the movie.