These two images were taken at about the same time, during the winter of 1964. The one on the left was taken by a photographer who was commissioned by Mark Lane. The one on the right was taken by the FBI. But,  the amount of hair coverage is vastly different, with much more coverage on the right. So, which one is accurate? And who do you think falsified evidence, Mark Lane or the FBI?

If you are Joseph Backes, you probably think Mark Lane falsified it. But, if you are not among the bloodied, as Backes is, then you know very well that Mark Lane never would have falsified anything, and the false image has to be the FBI photo. 

So, let's compare the hair in the FBI photo to a known picture of Lovelady from an earlier time. The image on the left is from the 1950s, with the exact year unknown. But, going by his apparent age, I would say he looks to be about 20 years old, and that would date the picture at 1957, since he was born in 1937. 

For all practical purposes, those hairlines look exactly the same. And it's not just the hairline, but the length of the hair, the style of the hair, and the cut of the hair. It's all very much the same. 

After 7 years? What are the chances of that? They would have us believe that Billy Lovelady, who was a rapidly balding young man, maintained complete stability in his hair for 7 years from 1957 and 1964, but then, in the 3 years following, it almost all fell out.

Look at the 3 of them together:

Are you buying that? Because, I'm not buying it. I don't buy that Lovelady maintained perfect stability in his hair for 7 long years when he was a rapidly balding young man and then lost it all over the following 3 years. I think they used the image on the left to fashion Lovelady's hair in the middle. 

And that was after they used it to fashion Oswald's hair in the doorway.

So, it started with Young Lovelady. They gave his hairline to Doorman, and then they had to do the same thing to FBI Lovelady.

And that leaves Mark Lane Lovelady as the real thing. Pretty sleazy, huh? Here is how Doorman originally looked, on the left:

People have no trouble recognizing anatomical likenesses between people. For instance, a lot of people think that Prince Harry is the biological son of James Hewitt:

And a lot of people think that Ronan Farrow is the biological son of Frank Sinatra:

But, when people see these two guys, they know right away that they are not only not the same guy, but they aren't even related.

They're not the same man. Period. I agree. That's what rational people say about Lovelady and Gorilla Man. Who says they are the same man? Only the bloodied say that. 

Watch, the Asshole is now probably going to refuse to put up the "good" picture of Gorilla Man. He's going to tell me to go find it myself. So, I have. 

This came directly from Robin Unger's site. That's right, Backes: I stole it from Robin Unger, just as he steals images from me- helping himself to anything he wants of mine, just as you do.  

But surely Backes is not going to accuse Robin Unger of using faulty images. 

First, here is the link to Unger's page, so that you can see the image there:

http://jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=5850&fullsize=1

And now here it is: 

Again: the above image came directly from Unger's site with no modification by me. So, presumably, even the Proscenium-stuffer has to accept it. Now let's compare it to Lovelady.

I deliberately did not fill up the screen with them. I left some space on the side. The reason is that further enlargement would have widened both figures, and then Backes would accuse me of deliberate distortion. But here is the list of disparities:

1) different shape heads, with Lovelady having a normal contour and Gorilla Man having a ski slope shape, where the top of his head and his forehead merge in an even slope rather than an angle.

2) vastly different ears

3) vastly different noses, with Gorilla Man's being short and stubby and Lovelady's larger
4) different necks, with Lovelady's mostly vertical but Gorilla Man's very much going forward.
5) much more prominent brow bones on Gorilla Man, hence the gorilla look
6) a much "harder" face on Gorilla Man in general, and a much "softer" face on Lovelady.
7) a much more massive chest on Gorilla Man
8) somewhat longer hair on Gorilla Man but also more recession. His hairline goes back further. 
9) larger, more prominent chin on Lovelady
10) and here's one never mentioned before: Gorilla Man has a cleaner hairline in back, where you can see a neat trim, whereas Lovelady has hair going all the way down to his collar. 

So, there you have it: 10 observed differences that make it absolutely impossible for Gorilla Man to be Billy Lovelady, and the image of Gorilla Man that I used came directly from Robin Unger. 

You lose, Backes.  

Backes, put up the God-damn picture of Gorilla Man that you think is valid. There was a man there. No one denies that. Robert Groden discussed him, did he not? I didn't put the man there. So, I obviously did not make Gorilla Man. But, you apparently think I did something to him. 

So, you put up the image of Gorilla Man that you think is valid, and then I'll compare him to the real Lovelady and show you why they can't possibly be the same man. Use any image you want of him. That's any at all, but put up a fucking image of him that you think is legitimate, for God's sake. 

Put up the non-bull-shit image of Gorilla Man. How dare you condemn my image of him without putting up the one you think is right? Put the God-damn thing up, and I'll show you how wrong you are. There is NO image of Gorilla Man that matches Doorman or comes close to matching him. 

The only thing that Robert Groden did, Backes, was betray the JFK truth movement. He never once put an image of Oswald side by side with Doorman to compare them. But wait! He never ever used an image of Oswald, period. The closest he got to Oswald was to show an image of Oswald's empty shirt- but it was an image from the Warren Commission, and in form, it looked nothing like Oswald's shirt.

They completely removed the jacket-like fold on Oswald's shirt. Why? Because it's a dead-ringer match of Oswald and Doorman. 

So, NO image of Oswald, only his shirt, and a dis-info version of it. That's what Robert Groden did to Lee Oswald in his analysis. 

And EVERYTHING he said in support of Gorilla Man as Doorman was false. The fact is that their shirts did NOT match. The fact is that the men did NOT match. The fact is that Lovelady did NOT say he was there at the time, but elsewhere. There is absolutely NOTHING that matches between them. 

I used the "Groden scan" of Doorman because we're talking about Groden. But, let's bump it up a notch. This is the HSCA scan of Doorman. (and no need to get fussy about the use of the word "scan", Asshole; it doesn't matter) It came from Robin Unger. He says it's the best, clearest, sharpest image of Doorman there is. 

 Now, that is NOT a plaid pattern. There is not a single check or box on that shirt. There are no vertical lines, and even the horizontal lines are too splotchy to correspond to anything we see on Gorilla Man's shirt. 

It's not that they aren't close enough to meet the threshold of being a match; it's that they are completely unalike. You are fucked in the head, Backes, if you think they are the same shirt pattern. 

And there is no excuse for Doorman's shirt being sprawled open and Gorilla Man's not. Are you honestly saying that if Gorilla Man was facing us the way Doorman is that his shirt would look the same? That is ridiculous! 

Here is a lightened version of Gorilla Man. Notice that we can see both of his collars: left and right. 

Look closely, and you'll see his right collar. I'll outline it:

So, we are seeing both his collars, which means that we are seeing both sides of his shirt. We are seeing the left side of his shirt in its entirety, and we are seeing part of the right side of his shirt. But, both sides of Doorman's shirt were sprawled open, so if Gorilla Man were Doorman, the left side of his sprawl would be completely visible. Here is Oswald from a side view:

Looking at him from the side doesn't hide the openness of his shirt. The same is true for Gorilla Man.

If Gorilla Man's shirt were sprawled open, we'd see it. You can't blame the angle for why his shirt looks closed. That doesn't get you off the hook. His shirt looks closed because it was closed. The fact is: he had every button buttoned except the top button. 

I stated that Groden never addressed whether Gorilla Man really was Lovelady. By that I meant, he never broached the question of whether he could have been someone else, an impostor. Groden never took a known picture of Lovelady and compared it to Gorilla Man.

And when you do that, you see very plainly that Gorilla Man was NOT Lovelady.

Do you see what the folks said, Backes? It's because they are not fucked in the head like you are. 

So, Groden didn't deal with that. He didn't deal with the missing shirt sprawl on Gorilla Man. He didn't deal with Gorilla Man's large, bulky size in comparison to scrawny, starved-looking Doorman. He outright lied about the shirt patterns, claiming that Doorman's showed the same pattern and "color" as "Lovelady's". And he didn't deal with the fact that Lovelady and Shelley both said they left for the railroad tracks immediately. And not just them, but also Buell Frazier said that they left right away but he that decided to stay put. But, Groden said nothing about any of this testimony; it's unknown if he was even aware of it. 

Robert Groden is a traitor to the JFK truth movement, just as Joseph Backes is a traitor to the JFK truth movement. It's no wonder they are friends. 

Very interesting submission from Professor James Norwood this evening. A Utah high school took to photoshopping the yearbook pictures of students to achieve modesty. Here is a before and after:

There's something wrong with bare shoulders? Bunch of prudes over there, if you ask me. And if she was allowed to be at school with bare shoulders, doesn't that render meaningless the yearbook prohibition? But, the point is that they took to photographic altering to get what they wanted. And the same is most certainly true of those controlling the photographic record of the JFK assassination. 

Of course, they didn't have Photoshop back then, but they had other means to accomplish the same things. And I am sure that what they had was state-of-the-art at the time. 

They altered photos. They altered films. They altered x-rays. They altered anything and everything they could get their hands on. The JFK assassination was the most photographically altered event in the history of photography. And that is probably true to this day, with nothing exceeding it. 

No. I didn't, Backes. He occurs in the clip of Lovelady outside the TSBD after the assassination. And this is what he looks like in comparison to Lovelady as photographed by the FBI.

You think I made him? Are you out of your mind? He's in the film!

 And he cannot possibly be the real Lovelady. He has totally different features. 

Here, this is from Robin Unger. It's the Lovelady clip from the Martin film. I didn't make it, Backes.

So, that guy in the plaid shirt on the left from the Martin film, that's who we're talking about. You know I didn't make that because it came from Robin Unger. He is smoking a cigarette and turning to look inside the building. That guy, whom we call Gorilla Man, was not Lovelady. He's not Lovelady because he doesn't look like Lovelady. He's not Lovelady because he has different features than Lovelady. He's not Lovelady because he's somebody else, and I didn't make him. 

They are different men, Backass. And for you to deny it shows only that you have a barren intellect and a very corrupt soul.