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

Let's look closer at the woman and girl:

One must admit that it is a strange configuration. And if you don't think so, Backes, then show me another image like it. Remember that the only part of her arm that she could get under that kid- and that's where it's got to be, under her, because if it were going around her we'd see it going around her- is her forearm. And, her forearm has got to be going all the way across, including under the girl's left thigh. That's because if it weren't then the thigh wouldn't stay flexed like that. It's flexed. 

So, her knees and her hips are flexed. But, she couldn't do that unless she were getting support; unless she's sitting. So, if the mother has her arm underneath her, which is the only way she can be holding her, then the arm has to be going all the way across to include providing support to her left thigh. If her left thigh isn't being supported, then that legs drops. You hear me, Backes? Because, I guarantee you. There's no way she is going to hold it that way herself if there isn't support underneath her thigh. So, the woman's left arm has got to be making it all the way across to reach the outside of the girl's left thigh. 

There isn't the slightest hint of that hand emerging, is there? Not so much as a finger. 

Now even if the mother could do it- support that kid with her left arm- the child would sense that it was not in the most secure situation. And it would intuitively and instinctively react to that. For instance, you might see the kid looking to use her own arms to get support, by clinging to the mother, and we don't see her doing that, at least not with her left arm. And the other thing we would see her do is try to cinch up closer to the mother, which would probably involve her arching her back and sitting up straight and snugging up to the woman. But, the girl isn't doing that at all either. She isn't sitting up straight. She's very content to let her weight fall downward and backward and away from the mother, like she doesn't have the slightest concern- even though all there is for her to perch on is a scrawny forearm. And that's why I think there is a carrying device being used there. 

Now, let's consider the colors in this photograph:

As you know, most of the JFK motorcade images are black and white, and the few that are in color are pretty washed out. What we're seeing here is MAGNIFICENT color and there's none better.

But, the question is: in this and other pictures like it, how much of the color that we see was photoshopped in? Look how brilliant the colors are. Look at the turquoise Russian hat of the woman with the little boy. And look at the woman behind who is waving; look at that dress color. And, look at the pink of Jackie's dress and hat. Did it ever look better? I don't think so.  Don't you think they gave it a little help? Well, I sure do. 

And when it came to the mother and girl, I think they just decided to go with pink for both of them.

What's the alternative? To assume that the mother and daughter just happened to wake up that morning and put on the exact same shade of clothes? 

"Mommy, I want to wear the same color as you today." 

"OK, dear."

That kind of thing? Well, I don't think so. I think that when they got to them, they were so close and so complicated that they decided to just paint them both in a sea of pink. And it's a shame too because I suspect we could see a lot more and distinguish a lot more if they left the colors the way they were.  

And look at the little girl's neck, with that weird thing behind it.

It starts out being pink like the dress and then it turns white like the bonnet. Sloppy photoshopping is all it is.