But it wasn't even Lovelady's hairline from 1963, which Mark Lane aptly showed us.
So, you know that one feature which departs from Oswald and is a match to Young Lovelady from the 1950s cannot be valid. It's fake. It's the one thing they did to Loveladyify him. And except for that, every single facial feature is a match to Oswald: the eyes, the nose, the lips, the chin, and the ear.
2. bpete says it's Lovelady's expression, and he bases that on, er, nothing. Just his belief that it's Lovelady's face, ipso facto, it has to be his expression. Two words, bpunk, and the second one is "you."
3. Then, bpunk tries to dispute the slender build by trying to claim that Oswald had sloping shoulders.
There's no disconnect between Oswald and Doorman (center on right) but "Lee" on the left was a different young man with a bull neck and sloping shoulders and a much heavier build. A different man, a different man, a different man.
4. And the stance, with him clasping his hands in front of his body, was Oswald's. It is not something that Lovelady ever did.
And of course, we have many pictures of Oswald's doing it, including at the last moment of his conscious life when Jack Ruby shot him.
Again: Oswald OFTEN stood like that; Lovelady NEVER stood like that. OFTEN/NEVER, OFTEN/NEVER, OFTEN/NEVER.
5. And Lovelady was NOT dressed like Doorman. Here is the most widely used Lovelady image from 11/22/63.
And NONE of the images said to be of Lovelady on 11/22/63 are authentic. Here are the only real images of him from that day:
Of course, on the left they blackened out his face, but that's Lovelady, and he said so himself:
Don't listen to bpete. He is a paid government cyber shill, and he is one of many. It is their job to work the JFK cover-up online. It was Oswald in the doorway as sure it was Christ on the Cross.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.