A photo was produced by the FBI and sent to the Warren Commission, and we are entitled to see it exactly as it was. NOBODY has the right to fuck with it; not you, and not any of your Kennedy-killing friends. And you want to dismiss it as more "editing" just as you tried to do with the PD footage?
Well, you can forget it, you blood-soaked bastard. Not on my watch.
And the Proscenium-stuffer most certainly did not teach me about "fill-light". I use fill-light frequently, not in Photoshop, but in Picassa. I use it much more than I reveal because I don't post everything that I do with the images. You haven't taught me squat.
But, I think it's great that these guys are all inclined to post this collage of the Hard and Soft Lovelady again and again and again because now more people are getting familiar with it. More and more people know that there is a discrepancy about this. And considering that before I started barking about it, nobody knew a thing about it, I'd say that a lot of progress has been made.
The image of Hard Lovelady is a distorted image which deformed Lovelady's face by exaggerating the cranio-temporal depression on the side of his head.
It didn't happen by accident. Somebody was trying to change the way he looked. They may have realized that there is no reconciling these two.
It's a little better, isn't it? That's what they were after. But hey, let's keep talking about it, and keep posting those collages because the more attention we draw to this the better. They started lying about Lovelady the first time they said he was Doorman. And when they said that he told them on November 23 that he was Doorman in the Altgens photo, what they really meant is that they told him that he was Doorman in the Altgens photo, and he had better get used to the idea.
And then they said and put in writing that he claimed to have worn a short-sleeved striped shirt and blue jeans on 11/22. And then they photographed him in those very clothes and even had him unbutton the shirt like Doorman. Why did they do that?
But, before you answer that, why was he even wearing those clothes that day? Isn't it obvious that they must have instructed him to come to his 2/29/64 appointment wearing those clothes? How else could it have happened? Do you think it was just a coincidence that the very clothes that they said he claimed to have worn just happened to be on his back on the very day they took pictures? All a coincidence? The luck of wash cycle? Is that what you think? How you going to spin this one, Backass?
He showed up for his FBI appointment wearing the very clothes they said he claimed to wear on 11/22.
He showed up for his FBI appointment wearing the very clothes they said he claimed to wear on 11/22.
He showed up for his FBI appointment wearing the very clothes they said he claimed to wear on 11/22.
He showed up for his FBI appointment wearing the very clothes they said he claimed to wear on 11/22.
He showed up for his FBI appointment wearing the very clothes they said he claimed to wear on 11/22.
He showed up for his FBI appointment wearing the very clothes they said he claimed to wear on 11/22.
He showed up for his FBI appointment wearing the very clothes they said he claimed to wear on 11/22.
He showed up for his FBI appointment wearing the very clothes they said he claimed to wear on 11/22.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.