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

That stupid Backes. He finds a line from the HSCA Report that "photographs of Lovelady were furnished, which varied in date from 1959 to 1977" and from that he presumes that Patricia Lovelady provided them.  

Why her, Backes? Why didn't they ask Lovelady himself? You figure family photos are the woman's responsibility, so they must have gone to her? Is that it?  

And what gives you the right to extrapolate anything? It says the photos "were furnished" but it doesn't say by whom. Couldn't the CIA have furnished them? Couldn't the FBI have furnished them? Couldn't the Air Force have furnished them? 

And no, Backes, I don't claim that my assertion proves that the conspirators had the photo of Young Lovelady in 1963. What I claim is that the fact that Doorman has Young Lovelady's hairline from the 1950s and not Lovelady's hairline from 1963 is the proof. 

I labelled the one of Young Lovelady as 1957 based on how young he looks in the picture. And it's not just my opinion. Others have agreed that he looks very young and boyish there, like it might be his high school prom picture. I don't think he graduated from high school; I'm just saying that is how young he looks. He was born in 1937, and I don't think he looks any older than 20 in that picture. 
Furthermore, when we see how old he looks in the Mark Lane image on the right, it's a lot older. I think it's closer to 7 years difference in age than 4 or 5. So, since this government body said it was from 1959 without providing any proof or any reference, we won't feel obliged to accept what they said. They had a motive to make it seem more recent. 

But, what they didn't have is any valid reason to use that picture. They stated that it was best, preferably, to use images close in time to the assassination. Well, they had an image within 3 months: the FBI photo. So, even if the one of Young Lovelady was from 1959, which is doubtful, why would they go with that one which was 4 years off when they could go with one just 3 months off?  

But, for Backes to assume that because it said "photos were furnished" that they must have been furnished by Patricia Lovelady is whacky. It is weird. It's one thing for one government body to request something from another government body, but to ask  the wife of a figure in an investigation to provide photos from his earlier life is unheard of. When have we ever heard of that happening before in any investigation? 

And not actually the figure in the investigation, but the figure's wife. Backes is willing to just assume that they must have gone with and made the request of the figures's wife, and all because he saw this:

Backes, how many times do I have to tell you: you can't just pull stuff from out your ass and plop it on the table. Nobody wants your shit. It just says they "were furnished". It doesn't say by whom. They had to be furnished by somebody, so we already knew that. So, it doesn't tell us anything that we didn't already know. The source of the photos remains undefined. You can't just assume it was Mrs. Lovelady. 

Now, the 1977 photos were obtained from Robert Groden who took them. The HSCA hired him - paid him money- to take them. So, we know where they came from. And the FBI photos were available from the Warren Commission documents, which was another government body. That leaves the photo of Young Lovelady, and the idea that it came from a Lovelady family album and was provided by Mrs. Lovelady is preposterous.

They also came up with this photo, and I don't know where they got it. It doesn't even look like Lovelady.

And why is the Idiot brandishing at me a collage about the Creation of Doorman that Richard Hooke made when I have one of my own?

Backes, this is the Creation collage that I made, the one that I endorse, the one included in my video He Didn't Do It, and the one that is published on the OIC website. It shows that they moved the top of Lovelady's face, what I call his "cap", over to Doorman, who was Oswald. I have been saying this for a long time, and I have said it many times. And while you're at it, notice that Doorman's cuff is in front of Roy Lewis' neck- which is impossible. Look right below the word "AFTER" on the right. That is visual proof that the Altgens photo was altered when the inserted the image of Roy Lewis into it. 

And what the hell is that partial shamrock below the cuff on the right? Didn't Roy Lewis have arms? It's just a bull shit picture. Roy Lewis' face above the cuff is bull shit. The part of him below the cuff is bull shit. It's all bull shit.

Now, about the Towner film: the Woman and Baby in it are not real.  They were added at some point in time, and I don't know when. But, they didn't exist. They weren't real persons. 

But, Backes says they were there all along and that they were enhanced when they were digitized. 

But, they weren't enhanced. Do you call this enhanced?

I've checked all the digital versions of the Towner film online, and that is all you get of them, which is practically nothing. The still frame which shows them vividly and distinctly came from Robin Unger, and I don't know where he got it. But, here it is, courtesy of Robin Unger:  

Why is this a phony image? Let me count the ways:
1) the woman has no facial features, and I do mean none. 
2) the woman has no neck, and I do mean none. She just has a face, without facial features, and then presumably the top of her chest and shoulders. But, there is no tapering for her neck.
3) we have no idea how she is holding that baby since she is waving at the President with her left arm, and we can't see her right arm. 
4) she seems to have two left arms. We know that the "halo" atop her head is her flickering left hand. Here's how it appears when you take it directly from the gif.

Keep in mind that that is not from the movie. That is from the gif provided by Robin Unger. She is not that substantial in the movie, at least not in any of the online versions. But, you see her left hand above her head. She was (supposedly) waving that at the President throughout her appearance in the movie. 

So obviously, there is a qualitative difference between the two. But, there can't be any doubt that the "halo" we see on the right corresponds to her flicking left hand. And there isn't the slightest doubt that, in the the movie, she is waving at the President with her left hand the entire time. It's a constant flicking of her left hand. So, why does it also look like her left arm is coming down and going over to support the baby? What is that if it's not her left arm? Yet, how can it be her left arm when we know that her left arm was waving? 

So, this is a conundrum. It's like a chicken or egg question. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? How can the Towner Woman be waving at the President with her left arm and also holding the baby with her left arm? 

And if she is waving at the President with her left arm, then how is she holding the baby because she is obviously not doing it with her right arm? How can you hold a baby with neither arm?

And that's why I demanded that Backes explain how the Towner Woman is holding that baby, which sent him running back to Trembling Hills again for another stint of rehab. He was gone for a week!

But, the question remains, Backes. Look at it again. How is that woman holding that baby?

I asked you a fucking question, Backes. You can run, but you can't hide. How is she holding up that baby? She's definitely not using her left arm because she is waving at the President with it. And she's definitely not using her right arm because we'd see it if she was. How could she use it to support the baby without wrapping it around the baby? And don't tell me it's underneath the baby because how would that secure the baby? The baby could still fall away from her. So, how is she holding the baby, Backes, I said: HOW THE HELL IS SHE HOLDING THAT BABY?????

And speaking of arms, how come the baby doesn't have any? How come the baby consists of just two blobs, one white and one orange? How come the baby's face is turned completely away from the camera? Backes said that she brought the baby to create a lasting memory with the kid of seeing the President. So, why doesn't she have the kid doing it? Backes said at one point that the baby's face is visible. But, is it? Can you see it?

How come the Woman and Baby are so high up? How come we can see the tapering of Fedora Man's neck, but we can see no such tapering on the woman? How come the other people have eye sockets but not her?

How come none of this bothers you, Backes? How is that woman holding up that baby, Backes, when she is waving with her left arm and not using her right? 

How is that woman holding up that baby, Backes, when she is waving with her left arm and not using her right?

How is that woman holding up that baby, Backes, when she is waving with her left arm and not using her right?  

Why is she there alone, Backes? How did she get there? How did she manage to get to that spot by herself with that baby? Is there a baby carriage somewhere with all the stuff that she needed to tend to the baby? Are you just going to presume that, Backes, even though you can't see it? Or do you think she just brought a bag with her? But then she would have had to carry the baby in one arm and the baby in the other. How difficult and dangerous would that have been? How easy would it have been to drop the baby? How much risk was this woman willing to take with that baby? 

If there was a man with her or even another woman, wouldn't he or she be with her and right next to her? Think about all the difficulty there was in traveling to Dealey Plaza alone with a baby, including the need to have everything that the baby needed: food, bottles, diapers, wipes, cleaning materials, change of clothes, etc. How could that woman have done it alone, Backes? She appears to be alone, and you can't assume otherwise.  

It is a phony image, folks. The Towner Woman and Baby were never there. They didn't even exist. They are a cartoon that was added to the film. And the only part of them that moved is her flicking hand that was supposedly waving at the President.

It's just bull shit, people. Total utter bull shit. Notice that on the other people, you can see their arms waving, but on her it's just her hand; the rest of her and the all of the baby are fixed and rigid. They are fake. They weren't there. There is no doubt about it.  This is a smoking gun in the form of a fraudulent film. It is a showcase of evil, and those who defend it are evil.