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

Geez, this guy is as stupid as a ball of mozzarella cheese. 

 Cinque: "Why did they prefer to use an image from the 1950s where Lovelady looks like he's about 18 years old when they had better images from early 1964?"

Backes: Because stupid, they would have an image of Lovelady while he's closer in age to what Oswald was on 11/22/63, you IDIOT.  

Cinque: The picture of Young Lovelady was dated 1959 by the HSCA, but look how young Lovelady looks.  I say it had to go back at least to 1957 which would have made him 20 years old. He doesn't look any older than that. He still looks like a boy, doesn't he? Compare these two images. How much time are we talking about between them? 

There is more than 4-5 years difference there. It looks more like 7 to me. 

So, you want to do the Math on that again, you IDIOT? And why don't you learn how to write? 

Backes (edited by Cinque): Because, Stupid, they would have an image of Lovelady from when he was closer in age to what Oswald was on 11/22/63." 

But, Oswald was 24 in 1963, and Young Lovelady looks to be no more than 20 in the photo from the 1950s. Billy Lovelady had just turned 27 in Feb 1964.  

But wait! There was no need to be concerned about their ages at all. That is just a stupid Backesism. The only thing that mattered was to compare HOW THEY LOOKED ON 11/22/63 REGARDLESS OF AGE. 

You had two men ON THAT DAY, one of whom was a disputed figure in a photograph. What matters is how they looked ON THAT DAY. So, you forget about their ages, you dumb fuck. The only thing that's relevant is how they looked and how they compared ON THAT DAY. It's all about them on THAT DAY. So, if they had no images of Lovelady from that day, they should have gone with the image of Lovelady that was closest in time TO THAT DAY. Their ages don't matter the least bit, you dumb fuck. It's only how they looked on that day that matters.  

So, they should have used an image of Lovelady from within 3 months of the assassination rather than one from many years prior.

Now, concerning the Warren Commission Documents, from History-matters.com: 

"The Warren Commission published 15 volumes of hearings and an additional 11 volumes of evidence. The published evidence was taken from a larger collection of what are called Warren Commission Documents, referenced by 'WCD.' There are 1,555 documents in all, encompassing roughly 50,000 pages. They consist largely of reports from the FBI and other agencies including the CIA, State Department, and other sources."

And this is from the Mary Ferrell Foundation:

"Records of the Commission:

The primary records of the Commission include the following:

• Warren Report.
• 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits. The first 15 volumes are interview transcripts; the remaining 11 are exhibits.
• Warren Commission Documents. The exhibits printed in the 26 volumes are culled from this larger set, some of which were not declassified until the 1990s, and a few of which are withheld for privacy reasons to this day.
• Executive Sessions. These provide a fascinating glimpse into the inner deliberations of the Commissioners, and legal battles were fought to declassify them.

Many other Commission records exist - see the National Archive's online Inventory of the Records of the Warren Commission." 

Since Harold Weisberg wrote about the FBI letters and the FBI photos in 1966, it's obvious that he got to them, and I assume that he poured through the 50,000 pages of documents- or whatever number of pages were available at the time- and found them. 

It only means that the dogged effort of the Warren Commission to hide the FBI photos was even more duplicitous than I thought.

Here they did all that interrogating about who Doorman was and put it in the 26 volumes, yet they omitted the images they had of Lovelady and the information they had about him from the FBI. Wouldn't it have made sense to put the two side by side?  It's obvious that they did not want the world to see the FBI photos, and it's only because of Harold Weisberg that the world did.  

And let's keep it all in context: At the same time that the Warren Commission was at work hiding the photos they had of Lovelady, the Dallas Police, the FBI, and the Secret Service were actively trying to prevent anyone from obtaining a photograph of him. And I mean with extreme prejudice were they trying to prevent it. And that's why the photographer who captured this picture for Mark Lane should be considered a national hero:

  

You can find this photo inside the back cover of Forgive My Grief IV by Penn Jones, but it was Mark Lane who commissioned the photographer who took it.

So, it was multiple agencies of government that sought earnestly to keep the image of Billy Lovelady away from the public so that photographic comparisons could not be made. 

And how authentic were those FBI photos? Not very; the FBI doctored them severely. These two photos were taken around the same time:

Notice any difference in the hair coverage? Let's see you defend it, you God-damn Kennedy-killer.  

Everything about the Lovelady-as-Doorman claim was filthy, dirty, and rotten to the core. They have been fucking with us since Day 1, and they are still fucking with us. Joseph Backes is their enabler.