I would have thought they'd hire somebody smarter to do battle with me. An uneducated and unintelligent ex-soldier is not up to the task- and never will be. Case in point: He compares this image of Billy Lovelady, with his head flexed:
to this one with the phony hat, put in to hide the face of James Bookhout:
He claims to know that Billy was walking, but based on what? The story of the second picture tells us that the other guy was walking, but there is no basis to claim to know that Billy was walking. But, the Punk claims that they are both walking, and that they both have the same degree of head flexion. But that is ridiculous because we can see Billy's face, and we'd see it even if he had a hat on.
There is no correlation whatsoever between Billy and the bogus hat image, Idiot.
Then, he refers to blind people walking around not seeing. So, since they can do that, we should therefore assume that anyone can?
Apparently, Raff* has no knowledge of blind people walking around every day.
So stupid. So incredibly stupid.
Then, the Punk recycled a claim of Steve "Lance Uppercut" Haydon about bright light obscuring someone's hair.
This guy was directly under bright light at a pool table. On the right, is what Haydon posted, and on the left is how it looked when I found it independently. But, it has no connection whatsoever to this, because Billy wasn't perched under a bright light.
There are no grounds whatsoever to assume that his hair above was anything but what it appears to be. That is: the hair that we see is the hair that he had.
This guy is an actor. Shall we assume he has more hair than he appears to have?
It would be awfully stupid because there are plenty of images of him that show the exact same thing. That's his hair. There is no reason to claim any optical illusions. Again, it's stupid.
Hey, you evil Punk! Why don't you blame on Brownian motion?
Then, the stupid Punk claims that it's only because Lovelady had his head bowed that his ears seem to protrude. But, bowing your head doesn't cause one's ears to protrude.
You're stupid, Punk. And no, I don't blame the peyote. You're just stupid.
Then, the Punk made this statement:
Lovelady identified himself in a copy of Altgens 6 when the FBI questioned him within a day of the assassination.
Who said that Lovelady identified himself when the FBI questioned him within a day of the assassination? The FBI did. J. Edgar Hoover's FBI did. But, no intelligent person is going to take ANYTHING that J. Edgar Hoover's FBI said as gospel. They didn't sit Lovelady down in front of a sea of cameras and microphones to tell the world that he was Doorman. If they had done that, then one could say that Lovelady identified himself. But, without that, you have nothing.
Look, I know you're an idiot, but try to grasp something: hearsay is not allowed in a court of law. Someone claiming that they heard someone say something doesn't count for shit. And that's all this FBI claim is: hearsay.
And it makes sense that it would be prohibited. I talked to Jones Harris. I talked to him for about 2 hours. And he told me that Lovelady told him in May 1964 that he wore both shirts that day, that he wore the striped on and the checkered one. And that's hearsay too, I admit. But, it's showing you how easy lip-flapping is. Anybody can lip-flap anything. There's nothing bankable about either statement. But, in the case of the FBI, they were speaking for Lovelady at a time that he was alive and could have spoken for himself. This matter was important enough that a press conference should have been called for Billy Lovelady to tell the world that he was Doorman.
What do I have to do to get through to this boneheaded Punk that there is nothing reliable in anything the FBI said? The FBI was the enemy. The FBI waerethe bad guys. The FBI was complicit in John F. Kennedy's murder. So, why would anyone accept anything they had to say about anything?
And then quoting Roy Truly? Read William Weston, The Spider's Web: The TSBD and the Dallas Conspiracy. The TSBD was a CIA front company, and they moved into that building to kill Kennedy. Roy Truly was complicit in Kennedy's murder. Officer Marrion Baker was not.
Even the Mary Ferrell Foundation published Weston's article.
I have absolutely nothing to change or even bolster on the OIC site because of this tripe. This punkery is just laughably stupid. It really is pathetic. Granted, the punk is a moron, but he is also an evil bastard. And that is basically who they have fighting to preserve the JFK lie: evil bastards.