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

Is the light above the snooker table causing the immense glare in the one photo of Steve Davis?

Apparently so, since I found another version of the exact photo.

Although the difference is slight, it's detectable. 

Definitely a more expanded lake of white on the right.

But, let's put that aside for a moment. Just hold that thought. If an overhead glaring light was causing the light-fill and reflection, what does that have to do with this? In the picture of Lovelady in which he has little hair, he was standing outside. And it was winter. 

 So, you can't account for the difference we see above by pointing to the photo of Steve Davis. As I said before any of this began, it's irrelevant. It has no application whatsoever to Lovelady's situation. And it really comes down to one thing: who are you going to trust and believe, the FBI or Mark Lane? The FBI photo is a staged, scripted, posed photo designed to sell Lovelady as Doorman. The image on the right is a natural, spontaneous, unprepared photo, caught off guard. Which one do you think we can count on? 

But, getting back to Steve Davis, the fact is, that he really did have  and does have very little hair on top.

That was 2008, so 4 years before the other photo. How much hair can a man lose in 4 years? Quite a lot. So that raises the question about the other photo in UpperPunk's collage.

Hmmm. So that was him 4 years later in 2012? 

Hmmm.

The Punk said the one above is also 2012. Well, obviously, I need to find it, from another source, to see if there were any shenanigans done with this one. Our planes are in the air.

What I love about this process is that I get to write more and to post more. The smartest thing my enemies could do, instead of provoking me, is to just shut the fuck up. It's not as though Google puts any limit on how many posts I can make.  But, let the hamsters turn the treadmills. They'll never learn.