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

This is a valuable gif because it shows how they made the woman out of the tree. Look how identical they are. The form was already there. 

Start with the woman on the right. Notice that her long hair is coming down, and it meets her black dress. Do you see how the hair and the dress merge? Now look on the left, and you can see the same thing without them there. It consists of the double trunk of the tree, which corresponds to her hair coming down. Now, if you think this is legit, then the likeness between the woman and the tree is just a coincidence. You have to maintain that a woman with long hair stood in front of a tree, and the pattern of herself matched the pattern of the tree all by accident. 

And notice that the baby consists of nothing but two blobs: one orange, and the other white. But, it's fake because, as all mothers and doctors know, a baby of that age has a much bigger head in proportion to its body. The head is huge, and the body is small. That's just how it is. But, it's not something that most men think about. I'd bet you anything that the person who created that fake baby was a man- a man who was ignorant about the anatomy of babies. 

I'm telling you: they are fake. They were put in there, and the only reason was to substantiate the Woman and Boy in the Altgens photo, who are also fake. 

 These are obviously not the same couple. The boy on the left is obvously older than the baby on the right. And notice how large his head is, which is appropriate. The woman on the left is dressed in white; on the right, the woman is dressed in black. Note: It's the same spot and the same moment in time. The boy on the left is wearing a denim jacket; on the right, it looks like swaddling clothes. Really, it's just a blob of white. The "face without features" woman on the right has her hair hanging down her back and shoulders. On the left, the woman has her hair pulled back, and there is no sign that it is long. The two sets of couples are obviously not the same woman and child. On the right, it looks like her left arm is coming over to the support the baby, but that's just a case of "photoshop the crop". In the movie, her left arm is waving high above her head throughout, and I mean at all times. So, how is she holding the baby? With just her right arm alone? A fragile baby like that? With just one arm? But, the problem is that we can't even see her right arm, so how do you know she's holding the baby with it? Wouldn't it have to go around the baby? Wouldn't we have to see it, especially in contrast to that super-white coat? 

If you're thinking that one of these sets is fake, NO! BOTH ARE FAKE! They started by putting the Woman and Boy into the Altgens photo to cover up Jack Ruby, then later they added the Woman and Baby to the Towner film to authenticate what they had done in Altgens. 

And in Towner, the Woman and Baby are both perfectly still, as much so as if they were figures on a billboard, except for this flick thing that they added, which is supposed to be her left hand.

Can you see how the only movement is the flick, and otherwise, the Woman and Baby might as well be cardboard? So, this was a two-part fakery: the phony still images of them, and then, because it's a film, which is a motion picture, they added the flicking hand just to give it some motion. Nice trick. That is some pretty sophisticated techno-art. But, it's just bull shit all the way. Every step of the way.