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

Regarding this stripe in the road, consider the mathematical probabilities.

From a distance, it really does look like her thumb. It really is in the perfect location to be her thumb, were that her right hand. And it's not just in the perfect location, it's also at the perfect angle.

It's following the curve of the hand around in perfect symmetry.

Even if it was where it is but was pitched differently, angled differently, it would have completely ruined the effect. So, what are the mathematical odds that it would be there, contiguous with her hand (to use one of Backes' favorite words) and tweaked in perfect harmony to look like her right thumb? When before, in your entire life, has an inanimate object in a photograph, had the misleading effect of appearing to be a person's body part?

What if we showed it to 100 people- not close-up and not for very long- just long enough to get an immediate impression. And then we asked them what Jackie was doing. Surely, most of them would say: "waving at the crowd". And then if we asked them to demonstrate it, what do you think they would do? I maintain that the majority would raise the their right arm and hand with their thumb going out to the left.

I said once before, and I'll say it again that some of my opponents have said something like this: 

"So, they dazzled up a photo of Jack and Jackie.  So, they gave her a wave.  The fact is that Jackie DID wave at the crowd and quite a lot. So, if they wanted to portray her waving here, it wasn't an unknown behavior for her. She may very well have been waving a moment BEFORE this picture was taken, and she may very well have been waving a moment AFTER this picture was taken. So, in giving her a wave here, it falls completely within the acceptable range of artistic license for photojournalism. It had nothing to do with JFK's murder, so get off your high horse."

Actually, I can follow the logic of that. I don't really agree with it, but I understand it, and I accept it as being a reasonable attitude. I don't think there is anything immature about it. But, the people who are fighting me, tooth and nail, to deny that the photo was altered in any way are being VERY immature. 

And if this was the ONLY image that was altered, it would matter even less. But, it is NOT the only image that was altered. It is the last in a long line of images that were altered, beginning on the day of the assassination with the alteration of the Altgens photo, and even before that with the alteration of the Backyard photos. I say it shows a "pattern of abuse."  And that's why it's important.