The truth is that not only to my enemies fail to post collages of Doorman and Lovelady that match better than this one of Doorman and Oswald:
...but, the ironic fact is: there is actual no way to do it. The fact is that there are NO legitimate images of Lovelady to use. None. All of the images we have of him from the day of the assassination are bogus; they are NOT him. Therefore, there is no point in using them. The only other photos of him are the FBI photos taken on 02/29/64, but those photos were altered. They are NOT reliable photos of him. The FBI doctored those photos in order to "Oswaldify" him as much as possible. For instance, they gave him more hair on top.
The image on the left was taken by a photographer who was working for Mark Lane. I don't know his name, but he deserves the Purple Heart for getting that photo. The image on the right is one version of the FBI photo. There is another brighter version with much less shadow.
Which version got sent to the Warren Commission? I honestly don't know. And, we certainly couldn't trust anything that the National Archives said about it or showed us today. The Mary Ferrell Foundation shows the brighter version as the one that was sent. But, I actually think it was more likely the one in shadow. That's because it's softer. He looks more like someone who could be mistaken for Oswald. That was what they were shooting for.
But, the main thing I am pointing out right now is the difference in the hair. You see that FBI Lovelady has a lot more hair on top than Mark Lane Lovelady. Yet, there is NO BASIS to think that Mark Lane falsified his photo. For goodness sake: Mark Lane was and is a lawyer, and he could have been disbarred for doing such a thing. So, I'm saying that the crewcut we see on FBI Lovelady above is fake. And that's why it's a crewcut. It's much easier to fake very short hair than strands of hair. Listen to Roy Lewis:
As I said, the images of Lovelady from 11/22/63 are all bogus, and no two are a match to each other.
None of those guys were Lovelady. They were all impostors. But no two of them were the same impostor. None of them was actually there on 11/22/63. It was all film embedding. The first guy on the left is supposed to be Doorman, and he's obviously not the Altgens Doorman.
Is there any visual reason to think that those two are the same man? In other words, put aside what you want to believe and just go by the data of that collage and nothing else. Do you have any reason to think that they look to be the same man? I would tell you that there isn't a single thing that matches between them except that they are both males. To actually say that they appear to be the same person? It's insane.
So, we know that the Altgens Doorman was Oswald. And we also know that the Wiegman Doorman had to be the same person as the Altgens Doorman because there was only one Doorman. Therefore, the Wiegman Doorman above must be fake. So, all of these Loveladys from 11/22/63 are fake:
So, the bottom line is that we are left with no images of Billy Lovelady from the day of the assassination or close thereto to use in a collage with the Altgens Doorman. I would say that the most practical one is the 1964 FBI photo because at least we know that it is him. But again, it was doctored; it was altered; it was falsified.
There is so much evil involved with this. That's the most daunting thing of all: the depth and the breadth of the evil.