To my supporters, I want you to realize that I regard the FBI photos of Lovelady as totally unreliable. I don't doubt that it's him in the images. He definitely reported to the federal building in Dallas on February 29, 1964 and had photos taken. However, the photos are highly altered. For one, they modified his hair to resemble Doorman's. For two, they obfuscated his protruding ears. And third, there are at least three different versions of the photos.

The first one on the left is the one that was sent to the Warren Commission by the FBI, along with a letter from J.Edgar Hoover. That was in the Spring of 1964. The second version, in the center, is the same photo but with shadow added to soften it. That version was published by the HSCA in 1979. And I don't know anything about the chronology of the third image on the right. I suspect it came quite a bit later, perhaps years later, after digital editing was established. It's very different from the other two. His face is shorter. His eyes are smaller. His nose is less bulbous. And he definitely looks younger, probably due to the rounder face.

Our faces tend to be round when we're young because the skin cells are filled with fluid and hyalururonic acid, and there is a thicker layer of subdermal fat. All that goes away as we get older.

So, how did they do it, technically? Changing the aspect ratio may have helped. And notice the slight colorization. That isn't real either. The photos were definitely black and white.

But, none of these images of him are authentic. The Mark Lane photo of Lovelady with the protruding ears is the only reliable image of him that we have.

And I'll leave you with this: Who are are you going to trust? J. Edgar Hoover or Mark Lane. Well, I'm going to trust Mark Lane. There is no chance that he did any monkey business to the image. Just be thankful that he got us that one and only reliable image of Billy Lovelady that we have.

 On the left is a normal hand, which happens to be the hand of Barack Obama. On the right is Lovelady's freak hand.

The way the hand hangs at the end of your arm when you're standing is determined by the anatomy of the hand, by gravity, and by whether the person is doing anything with the hand or just letting it hang. For instance, if the person was making a fist it would obviously look different. But, in this case, we have to assume that Lovelady, like Obama, wasn't doing anything with his hand.

But, when you compare the two, only Obama's hand looks normal. And the weird look of Lovelady's hand could not have been the result of anything he was doing. His hand doesn't even look human. You notice that it has no arch. It has not the slightest bit of "opposition" of the thumb. And remember that it's the opposable thumb that separates Man from the apes. So, was Lovelady a man or an ape?

It is not a photograph of his hand. It is art. Crude, crappy art that looks like something a 6th grader did.

What do you think would happen if I showed it to a Professor of Anatomy? Maybe I will. And how many fingers did Lovelady have? It's rather dubious. It looks more like 4 than 5. What's the excuse for that? Bad cameras of the 1970s? Only in JFK-land is such freakery accepted.

Why would Lovelady have a massive left arm but scrawny right arm? Why would he have long, slender fingers on his right hand, but short, stubby fingers on his left hand? What is causing that tourniquet like constriction at the top of his left arm?

And if you look closely at his second button from the top, it's past the margin of the shirt. What's it sewed to? It seems to be in the space between the two sides of the shirt. So again, What's it sewed to?

This is another example of the wild, wacky world of the JFK assassination, where wild, wacky stuff happens, and the only answer is: "it's JFK-land."

 

This is how the New York Times reported the death of Billy Lovelady in 1979. They said that he died at the age of 41 but without saying what caused his death. People don't die of old age at 41. Something catastrophic must have happened to him, but not a word about it from the New York Times.

They mentioned his lawyer, Ken Brooten, but without saying that Brooten previously was the top lawyer for the HSCA, but then he quit his job to represent Lovelady. Why did Lovelady need a lawyer at all when he wasn't being criminally investigated? I know why. It's because Brooten visited Lovelady in Colorado and saw what a wreck he was. Brooten realized that making him testify would likely hurt the effort to sell him as Doorman. In a word, Lovelady was no good at lying.

So, for the first and only time in history,, a government lawyer quit his job to represent the guy he was investigating.

But, returning to the New York Times, they made a big deal about the "uncanny resemblance" between Oswald and Lovelady, and it was bad enough to lie about it with words. But, they went beyond that. They published altered images of both of them that were falsely made to look uncannily alike. They put the "can" in "uncanny."

I found each of the source images they used. For Lovelady, it was his FBI photo from February 1964, which the FBI altered, giving him more hair, obscuring his protruding ears, and more, but the New York Times altered it even more, giving him larger, rounder eyes, that were much like Oswald's. I suspect they harvested Oswald's eyes from another image of him and put them on Lovelady. They also used light/dark contrast on him and on Oswald to give them both cheek lines that neither had.

The eyes are the most distinctive thing about a person, and those eyes are extremely alike. If I tried, I might be able to find the image of Oswald that they used to get those eyes for Lovelady, and I just might look for it. They are certainly not Lovelady's eyes. It is a blatantly false rendering of Lovelady's face, and why? It's because it's all a lie. The whole Lovelady story is a lie. Oswald was standing in the doorway during the shooting of JFK. That is a fact, and we are not going to take any more crap about it. At least, I'm not, but, I know there are others who support me.

 

When Lovelady died in January 1979, it was widely reported in the media. But, look what the New York Times did. They created a phony collage of Lovelady and Oswald that falsely suggests a great likeness between them. They gave them both a cheek line that neither of them had. 

In the center is the article, including the collage. On the left, is the FBI photo of Lovelady which was the source of the phony image of him in the collage. And note that even that FBI image was highly altered by the FBI. So, they took an altered image and altered it some more. 

On the right is the image of Oswald that was the source of the phony image of him. Someone set out to create the "uncanny resemblance" between them of which the article spoke. That collage is a false image. It is a lie. It is a lie using pictures. It wasn't an accident. Someone was given an assignment: "make these two guys look alike." Lovelady was only captured once honestly, and that was by a photographer who was commissioned by Mark Lane. And the strange thing is that they state that he was only 41 years old, but they didn't provide a cause of death. Even when old people die, they usually cite a cause of death. But, when a 41 year old dies, you know that something catastrophic happened. You don't die of old age at 41. But, they were so intent on spieling the propaganda on him and Oswald looking alike, they forgot all about citing a cause of death. I think he was murdered. I think they got a drug into him that mimicked a heart attack. 

 There is another image of Lovelady posing in the doorway. It's from 1971 and taken by Robert Jackson- the image on the left. I included Mark Lane's image of Lovelady from 1964 on the right for comparison.

Note, once again, in the Robert Jackson image, the manipulation of the left arm, which has a constriction that reminds me of a tourniquet. I put an arrow to it. And the whole arm looks weird. It's too big. It's like he was the Incredible Hulk. But, it also too short. Both his hands are freaky and not anatomically correct. They look like manikin hands. The index fingers are too long, but the two hands are very different from each other.

And his right ear is too low. Lovelady had protruding ears, as you can see in the Mark Lane photo on the right.

So, the Robert Jackson photo of Lovelady is yet another image from the cesspool of the JFK assassination- another pathetic and desperate attempt to bolster the lie that Billy Lovelady was the Doorway Man. The Man in the Doorway was Oswald and the truth of that is going to lead the way to JFK truth for all.

 

This is CBS Lovelady, although CBS never used this image or the extensive interview they did with Lovelady in 1967. But, notice that there is a break in his left sleeve. I put a white arrow to it. And it's the same way on the Robert Groden images of Lovelady.

So, why is that break there? Why is the contour of the sleeve interrupted? It's because it was a pajama top, which have very wide sleeves. On the right is a comparison between my pajama top and a regular shirt. You see how much wider the sleeve and the cuff of the pajama top is than that of the shirt. But, they couldn't let that pajama sleeve show on Lovelady, so they cut it off and painted on something more appropriate for a shirt.

But, why were they so lazy about it? With a little effort, they could have made it look nice. Crude bastards.