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

It's total insanity, I agree. Only Joseph Backes could look at these arrows and say I am claiming that the guy on the right came first.

First, people read from LEFT TO RIGHT, therefore the guy on the left came first, and nobody would do it any other way. Then, there are the arrows which show you how it progresses. So, how could the Backsloth say this?

"Once again, (he claims) the Altgens photo was altered using photos from February 1964."

That's not just crazy; it's Backshit crazy.

And, the fact is that the Altgens6 photo was only wired to the AP in New York.

I don't vouch for the above account, but I'm pointing out that even the FBI admitted that Altgens6 was NOT wired to the world at large right away.

British researcher Paul Rigby claimed the AP delayed the release of Altgens6 and at their own expense. You'll find his account on the Wrap page of the OIC website:

 How would it be possible for the forgers of the photo to intercept it if it were sent out instantly on the news wires and, above all, was there enough time to “doctor” the photo in literally a matter of minutes?

ANSWER: The above timeline is part of official assassination lore, but like much of official assassination lore, it is highly suspect. British JFK researcher Paul Rigby maintains that the Altgens6 photo (there were 7 altogether) was handled differently than the other 6.  There was a delay in the release of Altgens6 because it was first wired to AP headquarters in New York, where it was "cropped twice."  Rigby maintains that there was roughly a two to three hour window of opportunity for them to alter it.  His exact words were: "I don't wish to exaggerate the window of opportunity for alteration. It was, at most, I hazard a guess, two to three hours. But, a window of opportunity there does appear to have existed."

Paul Rigby is a well-respected JFK researcher, so we are going to let him expound:

"On the basis of the available evidence, we can, provisionally at least, conclude the following: 1) Altgens did not develop his own photos; 2) Altgens6 went by fax, not to the world at large, but to the AP New York HQ, at just after 1:00 PM CST; 3) the negatives were sent by commercial airline, ostensibly to the same destination but did not arrive until hours after the initial fax; 4) the dissemination of the image from NY did not occur until at least 2 hours after the fax arrived but before the arrival of the negatives; 5) Both the AP and Altgens appear to have sought to conceal this hiatus; 6) AP acted against its own commercial interest in delaying release of Altgens6; 7) the version which first appeared in the final editions of newspapers in Canada and the US on the evening of November 22 was heavily, and very obviously, retouched; 8) point 7 may not be the explanation, either full or partial, for the concealed delay; it is quite conceivable that obvious alterations were used to draw attention away from other more subtle stuff."

We have also heard from Roy Schaeffer who at the time of the assassination was a professional photo processor for The Dayton Daily News.  He reported that there was a long delay in the Altgens6 reaching his newspaper. The photo-fax did not arrive until 7 AM the next morning, Saturday, November 23, and Roy is the one who received it. Immediately, he could see unmistakable signs of photographic alteration, including masking.  Because of his background and expertise, Roy was absolutely certain of this, and it started him on a lifelong quest for JFK truth. 

This photo of Lovelady is often referred to as the "marriage" photo.

I don't know if this was from his marriage to Patricia or not, and I have my doubts. But regardless, even if it was, it occurred years before the JFK assassination, therefore the photo definitely existed at the time of the JFK assassination. Backes claims that it didn't surface until the HSCA, but all we know is that it didn't surface PUBLICLY until the HSCA. It doesn't mean it wasn't in official hands at the time of the JFK assassination. And if official hands had used it to alter Doorman's hairline, you can understand why they would keep it under wraps. In fact, even 16 years later, when the HSCA released it, they flipped it.

That is what the HSCA showed to the world. As Backass would say, "Opps!"

And yes, the man on the left is younger than the man on the right, but the man on the right isn't Lovelady.

They moved over the "cap" of Young Lovelady to Oswald. It was just like they did with the Backyard photos except there they grabbed most of Oswald's face (all but the chin) and implanted it over the body of another man. That's what Jack White told us, and don't you dare suggest, Backshit, that you understand anything in this case better than Jack White.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S531gzx0rG4

So, the fact is that they had the photo of Young Lovelady in 1963; they just didn't admit it, and they didn't show it to the world. 

"On the right is a picture of Lovelady taken on 2/29/64."

That is a legitimate sentence. It subsumes the following: 

(The picture) on the right is a picture of Lovelady on 2/29/64."

The meaning is clear and explicit the way I wrote it, so you go to Hell. 

Now, these two are definitely both Lovelady, but how many years had passed between (the one on the) left and (the one on the) right? 

(Note: I would have just said "between left and right" to abbreviate but some people have no grasp of syntax or what the word means.)

At least 6 years went by between left and right.