This is in response to one of his hit pieces against me. And I don't mind a bit when he, and people like him, do this because it's more fodder for me to work with. It results in me posting more. and the more I post, the better. It's not as though there is anything they can say that will stymie me. No chance of that. So, they are just hamsters running on my treadmill. That's all they are.
And, in this case, UpperPunk started with this. It's a photo of Billie Lovelady taken by Mark Lane. It's the same photo, it's just that the tint and lighting were messed with. I don't know why. I don't know who did it. It wasn't me.
Upperpunk thinks it's awful that the two versions exist. Does he feel the same way about the two versions of the FBI photo? Not so much.
And note that there is no real difference in effect for Mark Lane's photo. But, for the FBI photo, the effect is huge with Lovelady looking harder and more swarthy on the left and softer and more boyish on the right. Huge difference.
But, we can easily settle the matter, once and for all, for the Mark Lane photo by going directly to Mark Lane.
That was taken directly from Mark Lane's video about this. So, that must be how the photo actually looked.
Then, the Punk tried to say that it was taken a year after the assassination- to imply that Lovelady underwent severe hair loss that year. But, that photo was most likely taken the winter of 1964 because that was when there was a frenzy of photographers trying to capture a picture of Lovelady. On what basis does the Punk claim that it was a year later? I don't know, and I don't grant his claim. However, even if he were right, it would still be close enough to the assassination to establish his hairline at the time. You can't make more out of a year of hair loss than it represents. It's not like he had some alopecia disease. He just had standard male balding. So, either way, it's close enough.
By the way, this image was taken from the back cover of Forgive My Grief IV by Penn Jones. He filled up the whole back cover with the image.
So, there had to be some distortion involved in that although no malfeasance. I'm certainly not accusing Penn Jones of anything.
Still, the Punk is exaggerating the difference between these two. It essentially shows the same condition of his hair, which is that he was mostly bald on top with just a few strands going back.
And again, I think the best thing is to go directly with the image that Mark Lane himself used:
You can see that Lovelady was mostly bald in front. He had just a few strands in two clusters, and that's it. In front, he had no hairline at all.
So, he had two small strand-clusters, and that was it. Otherwise, the front of his head was a sea of baldness. There was no hairline at all. Just those two small clusters.
Next, UpperPunk moves on to the FBI photo. UpperPunk trusts the FBI. He never considers that the FBI may have altered the photo in order to make Lovelady look like Doorman.
Before you can talk about whether FBI Lovelady matches Doorman, you have to ask whether he matches himself. The image on the right may have been taken the same year, the same month, the same week, or even possibly the same day as the FBI photo. You see the heavy winter coat on Lovelady? That tells you it was the dead of winter. Like perhaps February 29, 1964. Mark Lane may have found out about Lovelady's appointment with the FBI and placed his photographer there. But, in any case, you can see that FBI Lovelady has a lot more hair.
On the left, we sort-of see the two clusters, but behind the clusters, there is a lot more hair on FBI Lovelady. It looks like a pretty thick carpet of hair. And no, you can't blame the condition on angle differences and lighting conditions. That isn't a trump card that you can pull out and play whenever you want. Because: when couldn't you use it? Never. That would mean there are no altered photos. It isn't so much an explanation as it is an excuse- a "dog ate my homework" excuse.
And let's not forget that there is yet another version of the FBI photo with even more hair yet.
As usual, UpperPunk blames me for the poor resolution of the above image, but it is not my image. And it is what it is. Notice that even when posing as Doorman, Lovelady clasped his hands behind his back. Doorman, being Oswald, clasped his hands in front of his body.
But, ultimately, it comes down to this: Why should we rely on a posed, staged, scripted, propaganda photo of Lovelady done by the FBI? Isn't it far better to rely on a natural, spontaneous photo of Lovelady from his life, where there was no stage direction, no preparation, no effect being sought, no mission to accomplish?
Another way to put it is: Why rely on a photo of Lovelady when he was clearly acting, and not only acting, but being directed, when we can look at a natural, spontaneous photo of him in real life, in which he was just being himself and not trying to look like Doorman?
And why not remove the FBI's ability to tinker with a photograph to produce the effect that they wanted? Isn't that like asking the Wolf to guard the Hen House?
Any honest sensible person knows that that is true, that you don't go with a posed, scripted, government image. You go with something out of Lovelady's real life when you know he's just being himself, his natural, unprimped, spontaneous self. And especially in this case when we know that the government was massively involved in the killing and the cover-up.
Lance Uppercut pretends to be an Oswald defender. But, in all these years that he's been at it, he has never once posted anything to defend Oswald. Rather, his blather has been 100% directed at me. He says he believes in Oswald's innocence only because he is trying to win favor with people who believe in Oswald's innocence. After all, he has nothing to prove with people who believe in Oswald's guilt. And so, he feigns being an Oswald defender. But, if he were a real one, he wouldn't have to use an alias, and he would do more than just attack a real Oswald defender. He would devote some of his time to attacking the people who accuse Oswald. Just sayin'.
Lance Uppercut is one of the UK Operatives who are working the JFK cover-up from across the pond.
Think about it: If he's not an operative, an agent, why does he have to use an alias? What is he afraid of? Why does he have to hide his identity? We are debating an historical event. Why can't he do it in his real person?
He is just one of many UK Ops who are working the JFK forums and Facebook pages to stifle the truth about the JFK assassination. And there is no more vital and important truth about the JFK assassination than the proven fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in the doorway during the murder of JFK.