Much to my surprise, I just heard from the office of one of the officials to whom I wrote, and they are requesting more information about the harassment and targeting to which I have been subjected because of my JFK activities. Of course, I am cooperating. 

This is exceeding my expectations by a wide margin. I only mailed the letter 2 days ago. But then again, it only had to go to Austin, and I mailed it from Austin. 

But, I am deeply grateful to this official, and I am so glad I did it.  

So, what happened to the pocket flap on Lovelady's shirt if it was the same shirt worn by Gorilla Man?

And how come it continued to fit him so snugly after losing so much weight? Did it shrink in the wash? Did Patricia make the dryer too hot? 

This was just sent to me by Dr. Thomas Halle, a reminder of what Carolyn Arnold said in her FBI statement about seeing Oswald between the front doors and inner doors of the TSBD entrance.

So, there he was right behind the glass looking outside. Do you really think he didn't step outside? Of course, he did, and we can see him there, plain as day.

I have always wondered why the HSCA gave the anthropologists the Wedding photo of Lovelady from the 1950s to take measurements on when they had the FBI photos, which were taken just 3 months after the assassination.

People change throughout their lives, right? And, Lovelady was a rapidly balding young man, right? So, wasn't it important to use an image of him that was as close as possible to the assassination? Isn't 3 months a lot closer than 4 or more years? So, why did they use the Wedding photo instead of the FBI photo?

Then, there is this:

"Photographs of Oswald and Lovelady taken close to the time of the assassination indicated that Lovelady's central hairline had receded more than Oswald's, resulting in a higher forehead on Lovelady. But, Lovelady's recession was not uniform. He has a downward projection of his hairline about one inch to the right of center. This eccentrically placed "widow's peak" was not seen on Oswald."

There's a problem in that they didn't specify whose perspective they meant in using the word "right". But, I presume they meant from HIS perspective. And that conforms with the properly oriented picture of Lovelady.

You see the widow's peak which is on our left, but it's on the right side of his forehead. Yes? So, it's HIS right. Therefore, the statement of the anthropologists is correct. However, the image that the HSCA published in their Final Report is this one:

Above, the widow's peak is on the left side of his forehead, that is, on HIS left. 

So, what I have to think is that they gave the anthropologists a correctly oriented image to do their anthropometric study with, but the image that they published in their Final Report for the world to see was the mirror image of it.

The anthropologists did lock on the matching hairlines between Young Lovelady and Doorman:

"Interruption of the central hairline (on the spectator) by a downward extension located slightly to the right of center."

That's exactly what they said about Lovelady. Notice that they used the word "right" again, and obviously, they were using it the same way. So now, it doesn't matter what they were thinking or how they were using the word. It doesn't matter any more because we know that on Doorman, the forward projection is on HIS right, our left, and they found the same thing on Young Lovelady. 

 So, that means that, for certain, the anthropologists had the correctly oriented version of Young Lovelady to work with. Yet, the HSCA published the flipped version. 

Hence, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the flipping was NOT an accident. They deliberately gave the unflipped version to the anthropologists to work with, and they deliberately published the flipped version for the world to see. 

It means there is nothing innocent or unaware about any of this. The HSCA knew exactly what they were doing. They knew which was which. They knowingly gave the proper one to the anthropologists to measure and compare, and they knowingly published the flipped one for the public to see. An accidental flipping is now completely ruled out. 

Why would anyone claim that this photo was provided to the HSCA by the Loveladys without a stitch of evidence?

I'll tell you how the imbecile's mind works. For him, it's a process of elimination, or you could say: a matter of default.

It appears to be a personal photo of Lovelady>no government agency would have any business or any means of having a personal photo of him or of anybody>therefore, the only ones they could have obtained the picture from was the Loveladys>hence, ipso factor, they did, in fact, get it from the Loveladys.  

That is how the mind of this cretin works, but he's wrong from the start. Lovelady was in the US Military. He then became a felon within the US Military Justice system. He then became a fugitive from justice within the federal justice system. 

Here is a link to the FBI 10 Most Wanted List. You'll see plenty of personal photos there.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/

Here's one of them:

Do you think that was an official picture, like an arrest picture? They would have had him take his hat off, wouldn't they? 

The idea that government would be unable to find personal photos of someone they're looking for is ridiculous. 

But, here's the clincher, and this is what really stinks: 

He didn't say that they PROBABLY got it from the Loveladys or that they MOST LIKELY did. He stated categorically that they did. And over and over again. And as recently as yesterday, he said:

Yes, the Lovelady photographs that "were furnished" to the HSCA came from the Loveladys.

There aren't even photographs at issue. There is only one. Yet, Backes continues to defy all logic, evidence, and even the lowest standards of objectivity. 

This is defiance. It is defiance of evidence. Defiance of truth. And it is defiance of sanity. 

This photo couldn't possibly have been provided by the Loveladys, and I'll tell you why.

It's been referred to as the Wedding picture, but it can't be from the Loveladys' wedding because they didn't get married until 1961, and this was obviously taken before that due to his young age. The HSCA designated it as 1959, although I believe it was from earlier than that. However, even if they're right and it was 1959, it was definitely before their 1961 wedding.

So, what would Lovelady himself be doing with it if it was from before their wedding? Did he bring it into the marriage? He had gone through a hell of a lot. In 1960, he got in trouble in the Air Force for stealing guns and trying to sell them.. He served time in prison and went through a trial.  He wound up with a $200 fine of which $125 he was able to pay. But, he skipped down on the rest and fled Maryland-illegally. As a fugitive from justice, he was tracked down to the TSBD by the FBI where he was arrested. He was going to be returned to Maryland to go back to prison, but the VP of the TSBD, O.V. Campbell, offered to put up the $75 to resolve the matter. 

But, that photo from the 1950s stayed with him through all that so that he could turn it over to the HSCA in the late 1970s? How likely is that?

And undoubtedly, if the HSCA asked for pictures of him, they would have asked for a picture from the time of the assassination. After all, they needed to compare him to a figure who was photographed on 11/22/63, right? So, wouldn't his picture have to be very close to that date to be relevant? The closer the better, right?

But wait! He married Patricia in 1961, and surely they had pictures from their own wedding.  Isn't 1961 closer to 1963 than 1959 or earlier? So, if the Loveladys were going to provide a picture at all, wouldn't they have provided one from their own wedding? Why go back to the 1950s? 

That is unanswerable, but so is the idea that this young guy who was on the lamb, a fugitive from justice, fleeing halfway across the country, would still have in his possession a picture of himself from someone else's wedding in the 1950s. Doesn't it seem like it would have gotten lost in the shuffle?  

And it's a very strange picture too. It was flipped when published by the HSCA.

So, did Lovelady flip it, or did the HSCA flip it? Obviously, it is insane to think that Lovelady flipped it. And how could there be a totally black background at a wedding? Aren't weddings supposed to be bright and cheery? There are other people in the HSCA photo of Oswald, which was also flipped:

It is clear that besides flipping this image they darkened it considerably.

But, you are seeing the other men behind him. So, how did it wind up with a totally black background at a wedding?

And how did that black mark wind up on his forehead, appearing like a birthmark? 

That picture was NOT from the Loveladys, and there is no reason to think they would have provided it even if they had it. If asked for a picture of him close in time to the assassination, surely they would have provided a picture of him from their own wedding in 1961. 

This picture undoubtedly came from a government file, either an FBI file or a CIA file. The idea that it came from the Loveladys is laughably stupid and totally unfounded. 

"Yes, the Lovelady photographs that "were furnished" to the HSCA came from the Loveladys. Again, I've got some interesting information I don't think anyone else has." Joseph Backes

Look, you stupid shit, there is ONE photo that we are even talking about, this one:

There is no other photo of Lovelady that could even theoretically have been supplied by the Loveladys. 

Are you claiming that the image from the Martin film was provided by the Loveladys? They didn't have the Martin, and there is no evidence that they even knew about the Martin film. 

At no time did either of the Loveladys ever acknowledge his presence out front at that time, and it conflicts with Lovelady's WC testimony in which he said he left the front immediately with Shelley. So, you know damn well that they didn't turn this picture over to the HSCA.

And, this series of photos was taken by the FBI and was turned over to the WC by the FBI, and they were never in the possession of the Loveladys. They didn't give Lovelady copies. So, you know they weren't supplied by the Loveladys to the HSCA.

And, the Groden photos of Lovelady were taken by Groden and turned over to the HSCA by Groden. So, they weren't provided by the Loveladys either. 

And that's all the photos of Lovelady they had that we know of. So, why do you keep referring to "photos" plural that the Loveladys provided to the HSCA? What other photo besides this one are you talking about?

You're stupid, Backes. You were born stupid, and you're going to stay that way. And you are never going to be invited to speak at a JFK conference again. 

You lied, Backes. You said the Loveladys provided the HSCA with copies of the photos, when there aren't even "photos" at issue. You just said it out of spite. You said it because it didn't say who furnished them, so you made it the Loveladys out of sheer desire for it to be them, and with utter and complete indifference for the truth. You invented it. You fabricated it. You made it up.

And not just with indifference for the truth, but with utter and complete contempt for the truth. That's what you have, Backes. You are so vile; so completely lacking in humanity for Kennedy, for Oswald, or for anyone else, that you will bold-faced lie- without shame, without guilt, and without remorse. Your only regret is that you got caught lying and fabricating.

You are not a researcher, Backes, and you will NEVER speak at a JFK conference again. 

Meanwhile, among those who actually defend Lee Harvey Oswald, his presence in the doorway has become Ground Zero in the whole debate. It's where the whole community has pivoted. The majority of Oswald defenders now place Oswald in the doorway at the time of the shots. 

What comes in second place after the doorway? There is no second place. Nobody is talking about any other place. There is no alternate location. Once you reject the 6th floor as his location, he reverts to the doorway, and there is no other place to put him. He wasn't eating lunch in the domino room at 12:30- that came earlier. And he only reached the 2nd floor lunch room a moment before Baker arrived, and Oswald was still on his feet and walking. And, the very idea that he would have preferred to sit alone in that dank, cramped lunch room at 12:30 doing nothing rather than be out in the sunlight watching President Kennedy and his glamorous wife ride by is preposterous on the face of it. Of course, Oswald was outside. Where the hell else was he going to be? Why shouldn't he be outside? And, he told us that he was outside. 

     
And, we have photographic proof that Will Fritz lied. And why did he lie? He lied because he didn't want to tell the truth, that Oswald told him that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front". 

Backes, you are not an Oswald defender, and no one considers you an Oswald defender. You collaborate with Oswald accusers every day, and you call them your "lads." 

These two match, Backes. The men match. Their builds match. Their faces match. Their clothes match, including their shirts and their t-shirts. It's the same guy. 

• And, if you look closely, you'll see that even their right collars - the way they furl- are a complete, dead-on, spot-on

  perfect match. And you would have to be out of your mind to deny it. 

Ralph Cinque:

Larry, Robin Unger recently posted this letter he received from Gary Mack, who runs the Sixth Floor Museum, in which he supposedly provides proof that the Altgens6 went out "to ALL AP subscribers around the world" at 1:03. However, the example he used to explain the shorthand is Altgens7 not Altgens6. See attached. Your response would be appreciated.  Ralph

Larry Rivera: 

That's right, Ralph, and I challenge Gary Mack and Robin Unger to prove that the Altgens photos were disseminated by any of the TV networks ABC, CBS, and NBC that day, the same way that ALL of the other photos were shown as they came in off of the wire.  Mack cites the Trask timeline which is exactly what we are challenging in our article and video on youtube, with proof that the AP WAS sending out photos that day as evidenced by the Love Field photo of JFK and JC and Jackie (with rose bouquet).  This image was shown by NBC around 3PM that day, yet the Altgens photos WERE NOT SHOWN on TV until 6:35 that evening and only by CBS.  All of these videos are available on youtube for anyone who wants to scrutinize them minute by minute the way I did. 

The cat is finally out of the bag - Altgens photos WERE NOT available until late that day after 6PM.  A few West coast newspapers published them that evening, as well as a very few East coast papers who produced late evening "extra" editions.  Furthermore, the photos we have shown of Altgens lingering in Dealey Plaza, then waiting to make a phone call while still out there, alone, prove the the Trask timeline is absolutely impossible. Larry

Today, I mailed letters to my Congressman and my two Senators detailing the abuse, harassment, and crimes that have been committed against me since I became involved in JFK assassination research 4 years ago.

And, I stated plainly my firm belief that these people would not hesitate to kill me, and that I am reaching out to them because I feel my life is in danger. 

And, I asked them for specific help which I will not divulge here. 

And, this is just the beginning. More letters are going out tomorrow- quite a few more- and I am not going to tell you or even give you a hint about to whom they are being sent. I'll just say this: a lot of thought is going into it. 

But, this has gone on long enough. Crimes have been committed. And I have every right to reach out to law enforcement, to political leaders, and to anyone else in a position of power and influence whom I think could help, especially since I believe my life is at stake. 

So, you may not hear from me much tomorrow, and perhaps not at all. I'll be busy writing letters.  

This is the definitive analysis by Larry Rivera and Roy Schaefer about the handling of the Altgens photo and the timeline for its propagation. It proves that all claims about it having been wired to the world at 1:03 are complete bull shit; it was not even physically possible. It wasn't chemically possible, if you know anything about the developing process that's involved.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/04/03/jfk-the-james-ike-altgens-photo-timeline/

Larry and Roy make a strong argument as to why Jaggars/Chiles/Stovall, the CIA connected photo lab in Dallas where Oswald used to work, is the most likely place where the Altgens alterations were done. I'm sure they had a crack team in place, probably the best photo-alterers in the world, although frankly, I think they did a lousy job, sloppy as hell. 

But, this talk about the Altgens photo having been wired to the world at 1:03 is just complete, utter bull shit. It is the song of the bloodied- the black swan song of the bloodied. And every time they say it, they are splattering blood everywhere.  

Did Lovelady have a birthmark on his forehead?

If he did, he must have had it removed.

Let's look at it up-close.

I doubt it's a birth mark because it's an unusual place to get one, and it would be an unusual shape for one. Besides, if it were a birthmark, don't you think it would have been removed when he was younger? No mention was ever made of Lovelady having a birthmark. And, no mention was ever made of Lovelady having a birthmark removed. According to the official story, it would have been removed between 1959 and 1963, since Doorman doesn't have it.

And that is Lovelady's forehead on Doorman. 

And, it must have been fabricated from that so-called Wedding picture because that's the only picture we have in which Lovelady's hairline was in that condition. And remember that his hairline was changing rapidly because he was a rapidly balding young man. 

I suspect the "birthmark" is just an artifact from the photo being manipulated. I really don't know how it got there, but I think it's likely that Lovelady was not born with any mark there.

Plus, they have means today by which they can remove facial lesions without leaving a scar, but I don't think they had such means then. It seems like there would be a scar if he underwent surgery.

Of course, the hairline above is just FBI flim-flam. After they doctored Doorman's hairline to match Young Lovelady's, they had to do the same thing to this image.

How come nobody mentioned this "birthmark" before? 

 That's not exactly true. KD Ruckman mentioned it. He just assumed that Lovelady really had a birthmark there that was removed, but I consider that extremely unlikely. I think it's an artifact.   

Ralph,

Here is an outrageous, blatant example of photo doctoring of the Altgens6.  It is from the Montana Standard, which published the photo on the front page of its issue on Saturday, November 23.  Scroll down approximately 1/3 of the page to get to the Montana headline:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/22/john-f-kennedy-front-pages-newspapers-day-killed-assassination_n_4283342.html

There is a complete alteration-enhancement of the face of JFK, which is, of course, obfuscated in the "standard" version of the photo.  In this newspaper, JFK's head has been crudely painted into the photo.  There is similar example from the Oakland Tribune, but Larry Rivera informs me that the Montana example is even more blatant.

This thing is a complete hatchet job with an artist drawing in the president's face.

If the face of the President could have been added to the photo, then that of Oswald could have just as easily been removed and substituted with that of Billy Nolan Lovelady.

James

Thank you, James. Of course, what you say is true. But in the case of Oswald in the doorway, I am convinced they only replaced the top of his face with that of Billy Lovelady, that is, his forehead, his hairline, and the top of his head, what I call his "cap". 

I can't be sure about the exact location of the graft, but that is approximately where it was. Most of Doorman's facial features are Oswald's. 

Look at Doorman and Lovelady:

Lovelady had much more space between his eyes and eyebrows. Also, look how small and closed and hidden Lovelady's nostrils were. Doorman is showing a wide, visible nostril.

Do you see how exposed and extended Oswald's nostril is? You're seeing the same thing on Doorman. It's the shadow below his nose. That's a long nostril. Yes, it is definitely Oswald's nose on Doorman, and it's also Oswald's eyes, Oswald's mouth, Oswald's chin, and Oswald's right ear. Lovelady starts above the eyes. 

 

Again, I can't be sure about the exact spot, but that is approximately where they did the bait and switch. 

I am pleased to announce that the newest senior member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign is the prolific JFK blogger on Facebook, Danny Vasquez.

Right now, this is the only image I have of Danny, although I hope he provides a proper image of himself. As you suspect, this is an image of him behind the fence on the Grassy Knoll in Dealey Plaza, and the year was 1990. It gives you some idea how long he has been at this in a serious way. 

Update: Danny has submitted a proper picture of himself, and here it is. This is what we are using on the OIC website.

Danny is a dynamo. I don't know that there is anybody who is pulling up more stuff, and always interesting stuff, about the JFK assassination. And when I discovered recently that he is indeed an advocate of Oswald in the doorway- the Altgens doorway- that was my cue to invite him to be a senior member of the OIC and he accepted. 

I always learn new things from Danny. For example, here is a recent post of his. Did you know about this? I didn't. And, as you'll see, Danny knows how to think, and he knows how to write. Danny may be the most prolific JFK blogger in the world today, and we are honored to have him in the OIC. 

On the morning Wednesday, November 20, 1963, in the center of Dallas, two police officers on routine patrol entered Dealey Plaza, through which the presidential motorcade would pass on Friday, and noticed several men standing behind a wooden fence on a grassy knoll overlooking the plaza. The men were engaged in mock target practice, aiming rifles over the fence, in the direction of the plaza. The two police officers immediately made for the fence, but by the time they got there the riflemen had disappeared, having departed in a car that had been parked nearby. The two patrol officers did not give much thought to the incident at the time, but after the assassination of the President two days later, they reported the incident to the FBI, which issued a report of it on November 26. For reasons that have never been satisfactorily explained, the substance of the report was never mentioned in the FBI’s investigation of the assassination and the report itself disappeared until 1978, when it finally resurfaced as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request.

Confirmation of this report comes from historian Michael Kurtz in his book Crime of the Century where on page 218 of the second revised edition he says:

Two days before the assassination, two Dallas police officers were making their usual rounds on patrol. As they entered Dealey Plaza, they observed several men engaged in target practice with a rifle. The men were situated behind the wooden fence on the Grass Knoll. By the time the policemen reached the area the men had vanished, apparently leaving in a car parked nearby.

Kurtz cites an FBI report, 26 Nov 1963, from Federal Bureau of Investigation. Papers on the Assassination of President Kennedy. 15 vols., 3847pp. Linus A. Sims Memorial Library, Southeastern Louisiana University, Hammond, LA

Copy of an FBI teletype dated November 27, 1963 which reads in part as follows:

TO: DIRECTOR, FBI AND SAC, DALLAS
FROM: SAC, SAN ANTONIO (89-67)
(1p)
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY
RE. OSWALD. EVIDENCE
….
ON NOVEMBER TWENTY LAST, THE DALLAS POLICE SIGHTED TWO UNKNOWN MEN SIGHTING IN A RIFLE NEAR SCENE OF WHERE PRESIDENT ASSASSINATED. RIFLE BEING SIGHTED IN AT TWO SILHOUETTES TARGET OLD MODEL CAR SEEN IN VICINITY OF MEN. POLICE CIRCLED TO CONTACT MEN AND THEY DISAPPEARED.

Speaking of policemen on the knoll, the Altgens photo has got these round black inkspots, several of them. And when I flood one of them with light, this is what I get:

What is that? Could it possibly be a motorcycle helmet? Here it is untouched:

Mike	Apr 24 (23 hours ago)

 On 3/10/2015 10:29 AM, Mike wrote:

> Ike Altgens was interviewed by David Lifton when he(Lifton) was writing
> his book.
>
> In that interview Ike Altgens says that he remembers that there was a
> policeman on the knoll at the time of the assassination...
>
> Here is a link to that interview.
>
> https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-1Kan2prBiaU/VP3hwXxSd8I/AAAAAAAAD5s/D50Alzi1ccY/w656-h717-no/altgens_sees_policeman_on_knoll.PNG
>
>
> And here is a scan of the knoll portion of the Betzner photo showing a
> figure that looks like a policeman on the knoll...
>
> https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-huqGdpxbM3w/Uh030GPYnaI/AAAAAAAACOg/3D_0ozMPHS0/w480-h360-no/bman.gif
>
>
>
> And a little more context...
>
> https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-l8CdHXswuiI/Uh6MWbVhQ5I/AAAAAAAACQ4/XFtzN8mnmbY/w943-h320-no/man_zman.PNG
>
>
>
> We also have the testimony of Emmett Hudson. In that testimony Emmett
> says that the only person he saw with a gun up there( referring to the
> top of the knoll) was the patrols.
>
> We also have the testimony of the Lee Bowers.


Ike Altgens saw a man dressed like a policeman on the knoll at the time
of the assassination.

That was from McAdams' JFK forum, a guy named Mike. So, Ike Altgens claimed to see a policeman on the knoll at the time of the shooting? But, that is not part of the official story. That contradicts the official story. And Ike was a very prominent and highly respected person in the JFK community. So, was that reason enough to send Ike on to Paradise a little earlier than he would otherwise have made the trip? 

Yes, there is a "remarkable resemblance" between their hairlines, but that's the problem: it's too remarkable. There was a 6 year time span between them. 

It doesn't compute, Robin. 

Australians are usually very practical, common sense, no nonsense people. So, what happened to you? 

You're exactly right about what I did, Robin, but I was not being deceptive. I explained why I did it. I did it because they altered Doorman's hairline, and that gave me the right to do it.

So, we're dealing with basically 90% of each of them, and they match very well, in both the man in the clothing. Do you really think that Oswald and Lovelady were twins except for the tops of their heads? That all they had to do was each wear a low-riding hat, and they would be indistinguishable? 

The matching hairlines below are a smoking gun of photographic alteration.

It's not a problem for me, but it is for you and yours. You people are the ones who have to explain it. There is no way Lovelady's hairline could be that constant and consistent over 6 years time.