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

There are exactly four photos of Lovelady displayed in the HSCA Final Report: the Wedding photo, which was used by the anthropologists, Gorilla Lovelady from the Martin film, FBI Lovelady from the 2/29/64 photo shoot, and finally, the 1976 images of Lovelady taken by Robert Groden in Denver in the presence of Ken Brooten.

You've seen the Wedding photo many times, but the other 3 are featured in this collage from the HSCA Final Report.

Notice how many images of Oswald they used. That's right: zero. They used one flipped image of Oswald in the anthropometric comparison to Young Lovelady (which was also flipped). But, they never put an image of Oswald side by side with Doorman to see how they compare. Of course, they compare very well, regarding both the man and the clothing.

There is no source, witness, testimony, or record stating that the Loveladys provided any images to the HSCA. And all the HSCA said about it was this:

Do you think it was evasive of them to say that photos were furnished but without saying who furnished them? If so, I couldn't agree more.   

But, does their evasiveness give Joseph Backes the right to assume and declare that the Loveladys furnished multiple photos? Of course not. Such a claim isn't grounded to any evidence, and therefore, it cannot be made. 

You can't just make stuff up, Backes. It always comes down to:

"This is what happened because of this evidence."

Every claim as got to be tethered to a piece of evidence. 

And frankly, it would not have been so bad if you had said:

"I THINK that most likely the HSCA got the Wedding photo from the Loveladys."

I would still have shot you down for saying that and on the same grounds that I've cited. Yet, it's not nearly as bad as this:

You didn't even have the decency to qualify it as a speculation. You just stated it as a fact, as a decree, as though you, Joseph Backes are Solomon or the King of Siam. 

You have no respect for the truth. You have no understanding of what's involved in ascertaining the truth: how it's done. You're not a researcher, Backes. You are the antithesis of a researcher. You're just a stupid man who was born stupid and will always be stupid.