This, of course, is Backes' nifty demonstration of his theory that there was another black man on the sidewalk waving. It looks like he merely applied the turquoise coloring around what he believes is the waving hand. 

But, I have a question for Backelangelo: If that's the palm of his hand waving, why is it so dark? You see, the palms of the hands of black people (whether they are African-American, African-British, or whatever) are white. The same is true of the soles of their feet. That is, they are about as white as white people's. 

Now, in your picture there, it's got to be showing at least some of his palm, doesn't it? The way you've got the thumb positioned, it has to. So, according to you, the "color" of his shirt, and of his black skin, and of his white palm were all the same, or at least, they were all reproduced the same in the photograph, so that there no distinction at all between them. It's all just one continuous mass of color from the fabric to the black skin to the white skin. You want to explain that? 

There aren't too many photos showing Oswald's teeth, but here is one. It was when he and Marina were travelling to the US from Russia. And you can see that he has intact teeth.

Yet, there is that image of Oswald from the 8th grade in which it sure looks like his upper front tooth was knocked out, and there is testimony to go along with it, attesting to a fight. 

So, what do you make of that? What you make of it is that there were two Oswalds. 

A man can't have a missing tooth and NOT have a missing tooth. So, it had to be two men.

You see that a tooth is missing, right? And you can see the testimony about it below that, right? But above on top, you see the upper teeth of the Oswald we know, and he didn't have a tooth missing.  Ipso facto, there were two Oswalds. Any questions? 

For those who, like me, don't have a Kindle device, you can download a free program by which you can read Kindle books on your PC. Here it is:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201245960


I actually bought the book myself because I wanted to see how it looks on Kindle. And it looks very good. It is laid out very well. I think they did a good job. 

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00RT37QWG

And I'll tell you: the story really flies. It's very concisely written. This is a novel for those who have a low threshold for boredom and want things to happen fast. There isn't anything tedious about it. It doesn't bog down at all. 

And here is my new poster for it. Pretty cool, huh? 

   

The Idiot Backes, after having failed to notice that dialogue was centered and the narrative not, is now complaining that exceptions were made, that I didn't always center the dialogue- as if I signed a contract. 

Well, it's my book and my discretion. You see, in some cases, I felt that, even though it was dialogue, it really served more the purpose of narrative. It just wasn't long enough or significant that I wanted to feature it that way. And therefore, I didn't; I just kept it in the context of narrative. So what? 

Backes doesn't actually have the book, and if he did, he would know that it transitions to yet another format. Is that unusual? Maybe, but so what?  I don't think it is going to be a problem for anyone except him. 

It's really no big deal. The book reads very easily, and that's what matters. NOBODY is going to have any problem. 

And now Backes is criticizing me because I have a character making reference to "towel-heads".  It's the character who says it, Backes, not me, and that character is not portrayed admirably. 

But, Backes thinks that it was misplaced because the slur should only apply to Sikhs. Oh really? You're such an idiot, Backes. 

The Stupid Backass didn't notice that it's the dialogue that is centered and the narrative that is left- justified in my book, My Stretch of Texas Ground. 

I did it that way for several reasons:  It breaks up the monotony; it makes it more readable, and it helps distinguish the two. 

But, the Idiot Backes didn't even notice it. It sailed right over his head. 

Then, without even having read it, he compares it to a movie called Red Dawn, which is nothing like it. He criticizes it for my having Al Qaeda just "appear" in the Texas Hill Country, as if that element of the story went undeveloped. 

What an absolute jerk Backes is to just assume that he knows what the book entails and how the story unfolds.  Well, your assumptions are wrong, Backass. 

I'll tell you that in writing a thing like this, you probably spend more time just thinking about it than you do writing. That's because you have dramatic ideas, and you may even have it all laid out in your mind, but how do you make it plausible? It has to be grounded. It's not real life, but you have to make it seem like real life. Well, through a lot of effort and sweat, I think I got it done. And I hope that for $2.99, you'll see what you think. 

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00RT37QWG

MY STRETCH OF TEXAS GROUND
                                        AL QAEDA MEETS TEXAS JUSTICE