01-02-2012, 09:45 PM
Figures A and B are the crucial images, because they have been obfuscated. My initial suspicion has been
that B was Oswald, but because his shirt A has also been obliterated and because the shirt on F has many
features that are more like those of Oswald's shirt than Lovelady's, I am now convinced that they took the
face from B, who was actually Lovelady, and imposed it on F, who was actually Oswald, just as in the case
of the backyard photographs, they imposed Oswald's face on someone else's body, which Jim Marrs and I
have proven--building on the work of others, including Jack White, especially--in "Framing the Patsy: The
Case of Lee Harvey Oswald", http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/19/...ey-oswald/ This is the kind of
fabrication in which the CIA specializes. It had a problem. Because B's shirt was distinctive--whether it was a
checkered or a striped shirt--they had to remove it, too. Why should anyone be surprised it happened here?
![[Image: 16832.jpg]](http://1078567.sites.myregisteredsite.com/dc/user_files/16832.jpg)
that B was Oswald, but because his shirt A has also been obliterated and because the shirt on F has many
features that are more like those of Oswald's shirt than Lovelady's, I am now convinced that they took the
face from B, who was actually Lovelady, and imposed it on F, who was actually Oswald, just as in the case
of the backyard photographs, they imposed Oswald's face on someone else's body, which Jim Marrs and I
have proven--building on the work of others, including Jack White, especially--in "Framing the Patsy: The
Case of Lee Harvey Oswald", http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/19/...ey-oswald/ This is the kind of
fabrication in which the CIA specializes. It had a problem. Because B's shirt was distinctive--whether it was a
checkered or a striped shirt--they had to remove it, too. Why should anyone be surprised it happened here?