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

What a mean, rotten dog you are, Backes. My post got a little bamboozled, but I have fixed it. And here it is: you can read it again. 

Backass, I did crop that photo, and the reason I did was to put it alongside Jackie from the Zapruder film and the Moorman photo. You don't need to see their feet to know that these women were in motion; Jackie in the Zapruder frame (center) and the woman in red on the right.  

The astute observer can tell that the woman in red is walking and talking on the phone. It's no problem. Her whole body language tells you that she is doing that.

The reason I cropped it is because it was in a collage with Jackie, and I was mostly interested in showing her hair being tossled.

We don't need to see her feet to know that she was moving, and that's true of both Jackie and the woman in red. The woman in red's legs are in stride position, and the very fact that she is holding her bag so high tells you that she is walking. She's holding it that way to stabilize it. It's less awkward to hold it up when you're walking. Your arm is like a pendulum, and you don't want that bag swinging at the bottom of it.  The higher you hold it, the less interference it provides. But, if she was standing still, she would let the bag dangle, of course. How fast is she walking? I don't know, but perhaps 4 miles an hour. And likewise, we don't need to see the feet of this woman below to see that she is walking. 

Backes, why do you have to be such an idiot all the time, in every response that you make? Why? WHY? WHY?