Friday, November 27, 2015

No, Backes. I have excellent depth perception, and I also have good common sense. The woman in curlers is not blocking Lovelady in this picture; we are seeing his whole face; it is unobstructed. And that means that she can't be between him and the camera because we are the camera.

Who is being blocked, Backes? It's not him; it's her. Part of her head is missing from our view. The upper right part. So, in this picture, he must be between her and the camera.

But, in the picture below, her right shoulder is obscuring the lower part of his chest. 

Can you see that the point of her right shoulder is right over his shirt pocket? That means she is blocking the view of it. So, in this image, she is between him and the camera. 

But, the only difference between the two images is not that anyone relocated but rather he just rotated his head back to neutral.

And in the process, he went from being in front of her (meaning, closer to the door, farther away from us) to being behind her (meaning, closer to the camera). 

And even in that frame in which his head is behind hers and blocking our view of it partially, her shoulder is still blocking our view of his chest. 

Let's see you take out a camera and duplicate that image, Backes. Of course, you have yet to take a single photograph for JFK assassination research. How many have I taken?

He, the Lovelady figure, is not legit. The Bonnie Ray Williams figure is not legit. The whole frame is not legit. It was fabricated precisely because Harold Weisberg was making a big racket about Lovelady having worn a short-sleeved striped shirt, so they made this phony clip to refute him. That was in 1966, so for 3 years after the assassination, nobody had noticed Lovelady in front of the doorway in a JFK assassination film? 

And think about something else: that clip was supposed to be 15 minutes after the assassination, so if you're going to say that that's him, then you have to assume that he was there the whole time, right? Do you have any good reason to assume that he left and came back? If you don't have evidence to assume that then you can't assume it. So, if that's Lovelady, it means that he was there when Oswald left for home at 12:34. So, why didn't Lovelady report seeing Oswald then? He was asked if he ever saw Oswald again after they broke for lunch, and he said no. That amounts to a tacit denial of the squad room sighting and this sighting. He wouldn't have forgotten, would he? And he had no reason not to be truthful, did he? And, it amounts to another reason why this guy can't be Lovelady. 

They faked it, Backes. He wasn't really Lovelady. None of the post-assassination sightings of Lovelady in a plaid shirt were really him, and that's because he didn't wear a plaid shirt. He wore a short-sleeved striped one.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.