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

Catching up now with the Idiot Backes. 

Backes, this exchange stands by itself and on its own merit.

Ball: Did you EVER see him (Oswald) again THAT DAY?
Lovelady: No.

"Ever" means ever, Backes. And "that day" means that day.  It means anywhere and anytime that day. It didn't ask if he saw him in the building again that day. It asked if he EVER saw him again THAT DAY. It's a global question. Did he ever see him again that day anywhere on the globe, on Planet Earth? And the answer was: no. 

And Backes, I never said that Lovelady didn't go to the Dallas PD. Of course, he did. I only said that he was never sitting at that desk in the detectives' squad room when Oswald was brought in there. 

How could he not have gone there when he made a written statement there, an affidavit? Of course, he went there, and I never said otherwise. 

And finally, Backes says that the jet black smudge over the guy's shirt is shadow. But, you only have to look at the other shadows in the picture to see that it is not a shadow. Furthermore, there is nothing that could cast it. 

 Backes says it's cast by the "mother and baby" (psst, she's a girl, not a baby). Then, he says that maybe it's from the baby on the other side. Careful, Backes, because it sounds like you're playing the "What if" game.  

But, it's really a stupid what-if because it's obvious that shadows, at that particular time, were being cast to our left. So, how could it be from the mother and girl? But, look closely at the man's pants. On the right side, you can see that they were brown, not jet black. And shadows don't appear as jet black either. So, what is the jet black? It is Photoshopping. It was colorized- and sloppily at that.

That woman could not possibly have had the strength to support the weight of that girl in her left hand. I'll say it again: That woman could not possibly have had the strength to support the weight of that girl in her left hand. And even if she could have, the heavy load being placed on that side would have forced her to lean in the opposite direction just to stay upright and in balance. So, what we're seeing there makes her not only Superwoman but Superduperwoman. She can't be doing it, and she isn't doing it. The only way to argue the legitimacy of this image is to say that there was an object there that the girl was sitting on. That is it. That is the ONLY way to do it. So, take your best shot. Do you think there was something there on the sidewalk? A post? Somebody suggested a mailbox. You want to try that? Claiming that the woman is holding her is hopeless. Yes, women can hold children, but they can't hold them like that.