Friday, September 2, 2016

No, Backes. That's not right. Once again, you misrepresent my position. 

Yes, I do maintain that in 1963 they had the photo of Young Lovelady from the 1950s. It may have been "a" wedding photo, but it was definitely not his wedding photo. That's because he didn't get married until 1961, which was just two years before the assassination, and he was obviously much younger than that. 

Even the HSCA admitted that the photo was from the 1950s, so it can't possibly be his wedding picture. They listed the date of it as 1959, which was 4 years before the assassination, and 2 years before Lovelady's own wedding. 

And yes, I know it wasn't made public until 1979, but that doesn't mean they didn't have it in 1963. And, it is an outrage that you continue to claim that the HSCA obtained the image from the Loveladys. There isn't a scintilla of evidence for that. How dare you claim it, you despicable bastard?  

If the HSCA had gone to the Loveladys for pictures, there would be a record of it. Furthermore, it's likely the Loveladys could have done better than that. For instance, don't you think photos were taken at the Loveladys actual wedding in 1961? Don't you think the Loveladys were in possession of such photos? Isn't 1961 closer to 1963 than 1959? So, if they had gone to the Loveladys, they surely would have had better, more timely photos, and probably a lot of them. 

So, you are completely full of shit, Backes, and again, it is an outrage that you defy all protocols of honesty and decency by making such an outlandish claim

And no, I never said that they used the 1964 FBI photo of Lovelady to alter the Altgens photo. You got the cart before the horse. The hairline alterations went from Young Lovelady, then to Doorman, and then to FBI Lovelady. So, they used the image of Young Lovelady to alter the hairline of Doorman, and then when they realized that Lovelady had lost a lot of hair since the 1950s, they had to adjust his 1964 image accordingly. So, the thick mat of hair that we see on FBI Lovelady is FAKE. Fake, fake. fake.

See if this helps you, Backes:

Get it? I know you're slow on the uptake. Look how many years it took you to get it in your head that I really did use Tri-X film. Or, are you still struggling with that one? Do you still want to deny it?

One never knows with you. You're such an idiot, and your stubbornness knows no limits.

And, the Altgens photo was not on the AP wire in 30 minutes. THAT IS A LIE! A despicable, dastardly, blood-laden lie.

You think they concocted an elaborate and far-fetched story of a quirky bus and cab ride, but you don't think they could concoct a lie about that? Highly respected British researcher Paul Rigby laid out the evidence trail showing that they had, by his estimation, at least a couple of hours to alter the Altgens photo. And it was probably twice that. 

And get this: the Bastard Backes claims that the Loveladys not only gave the "wedding" photo but also other photos of him to the HSCA. What other photos? There are no other photos. You just can't stop spewing your lies, can you.

Anyone with a lick of sense knows that there is more than a 3 year time span between these pictures. We have seen ourselves and everyone around us aging, so we know how it goes. He looks a lot older, more mature, on the right than he does on the left. It's more than a 3 year difference. 

And look how the HSCA handled it. They listed the date of the picture as 1959, for which they added "circa 1963." Why did they do that? They did that because they used the image to represent Lovelady "close to the time of the assassination". 

This is straight out of the HSCA Final Report:

You notice that it says that "photos of the Lovelady were furnished from 1959 to 1977." It doesn't say who furnished them. Backes PRESUMES that they meant that the Loveladys did, but as I explained, if they had gone to the Loveladys, they undoubtedly would have had better and more timely images than this. So, the above image must be the one from 1959. It says 1959. There's no other image that could possibly be from 1959. So, this must be the one from 1959. The fact is that there were three images of Lovelady: this one from 1959, the FBI photos from 1964, and the ones taken by Robert Groden in 1976, which they listed as 1977. That's it. There were no others. Ipso facto, by default alone, the "wedding" photo (which was not from Lovelady's wedding) must be from 1959. I actually think that 1957 or 1958 are more likely the correct date for that picture, based on how young he looks. But, we can leave it at 1959.  Either way, it's prior to 1961, and therefore NOT Lovelady's wedding photo. There isn't a scintilla of evidence that the HSCA obtained any photos from the Loveladys. That is a complete and total lie from one of the most despicable and rotten liars in the JFK "community": Joseph Backes. 

The one who furnished the wedding photo of Lovelady to the HSCA was probably the FBI. They keep files on people, including images. Remember? And let's also remember that Billy Lovelady was a convicted felon. He was tried and convicted of stealing firearms from the Air Force. So, don't you think there was a government file on that too? And that was in 1960. So yes, they had the "wedding" photo in 1963, and they used it to fashion Doorman a new hairline. Here is how he must have looked before they messed with him. 

And think about it logically from your own life experience. Even if we accept the HSCA date of 1959, it would mean it was 4 years before the assassination. If we took a picture YOU today, YOU meaning whomever you are reading this, and we compared it to an image of you from 4 years ago, what are the chances that your hair would look EXACTLY the same between the two pictures?

 Don't you see? The match of the hair is TOO GOOD. It is too damn good. Hair is ever-changing. It may not look and lay exactly the same from ONE DAY to the next, never mind 4 years.

This match below is too damn good. They used the hairline on the left to fashion the hairline on the right. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

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