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

So, why would Lovelady appear to have a full beard, and a very thick one at that, when he was known to be clean-shaven on the day of the assassination?

Why would the lower part of his face be completely black? And no matter what the technobabble reason one might proffer to explain it, why consider it legit? Hey, we know what photography is capable of. We know about the ability of photography and film to produce accurate images of the world. Any reason that might be proffered to explain this is bull shit. There is no valid reason why Lovelady should have a beard. There is no way to assume that the original image featured a beard because it didn't. How could it if Lovelady didn't have one at the time? Lovelady didn't have a beard. He didn't have a red neck and red ears. He didn't have a shirt with those flashy LSD-trip colors. He didn't have bulging muscles. This is bull shit. Complete, total, utter bull shit. This image wasn't just altered; it was fantasized to the level of a cartoon. It's a joke, a laughing stock. How could adults ever look at that and think it was anything close to real?