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

No, Upperpunk. You haven't posted my evidence. This is my evidence:

This is the one that proves that they took the hairline of Young Lovelady and moved it over to Doorman. Because, otherwise, what are we supposed to believe here? That on November 22, 1963, Billy Lovelady had hair that was exactly the same as it was as sometime in the 1950s, probably around 1957 since he appears to be about 20 years old? That would have been a 6 year passage of time. Yet, the hair was the exact same length, the exact same style, with the exact same lay, and the exact same amount and manifestation of recession? 

And then, you glibly present the image of FBI Lovelady as though that's a given, like it's not in dispute. Well, it is very much in dispute, Upperpunk. After all, we've got 2 images of Lovelady from 1964: one from Mark Lane and one from the FBI. 

Now, they both can't be right. Somebody is fucking with us, Uppercut. Either the FBI is fucking with our heads or Mark Lane is. It's one or the other. And I don't think for one second that Mark Lane would submit a fraudulent image of Lovelady. He could have been disbarred. It certainly would have been considered unethical behavior for a lawyer. But, the FBI? Fucking with the evidence is what they were all about from the beginning. It was freely articulated that "convincing the public that Oswald did it, without confederates, and would have been convicted in a court of law by a jury of his peers had he lived" was the urgent mission. Isn't that what Nicholas Katzenbach, the defacto Attorney General said within days of the assassination? And you don't think the FBI was operating on the same principle? 

So, you don't get to use the FBI photo of Lovelady, Upperpunk. It's off the table, or, as they say in court, it is inadmissible.  And Attorney Mark Lane agrees with me. This is from Rush to Judgment:

Hey Backass! Let's see you take Upperpunk's side and trash Mark Lane. Come on; you think the FBI got it right and that it was Mark Lane who messed with Lovelady's hairline- not the vaunted FBI. They'd concoct a bus and cab ride for Oswald, but they would NEVER mess with Lovelady's photo. There are some things they wouldn't do; some lines they wouldn't cross. Ain't it so? Let's hear it, Backass.   

But, getting back to Upperpunk: you can't use the FBI photo. In fact, you can't use either one:

If you go to the Mary Ferrell Foundation website, they show Hard Lovelady as the one sent to the WC by J. Edgar, the crossdresser. But if you go to the JFK Lancer website, they show the Soft Lovelady. Which one got sent? I don't claim to know. Why do both exist? Well, they used shade and lightening to go back and forth, but what I suspect is that when they wanted Lovelady to look like Oswald, they went with soft, but when they wanted him to look like Gorilla Man, they went with hard. But, that's just a supposition. 

But regardless, it's off the table; you cannot use FBI Lovelady in any form to substantiate Doorman's hairline. Somebody makes the rules around here, but it isn't you, Upperpunk. You make the rules in the dungeon. Well, you wouldn't if I were in the dungeon, but that's neither here nor there. The point is: you can't use FBI Lovelady. 

Another good demonstration is that we have a picture of Lovelady from 1967. It's a photo that CBS took but never used. They were going to cover the Doorman issue in their 1967 JFK special which ran for 4 hours. But someone, wisely, decided to yank the Doorman segment. Smart move, because it was only going to make things worse- for them. You don't go stirring up hornets' nests, and you let sleeping dogs lie. 

But alas, the picture got away from them, and I have it now. 

For some reason, that picture, like many other JFK pictures, was left-to-right flipped, but no worries: I unflipped it. He looks pretty bald doesn't he? Let's compare him to the earlier pictures:

So, let's see what we have here. We have Lovelady going from 1957 to 1964- 7 FREAKING YEARS- without losing a strand of hair. Then, over the next three years, it practically all fell out. So he had stable hair for 7 years, and then suddenly, it started like falling out at a rapid pace. 

Let's graph it, shall we? They say a picture is worth a thousand words:

So, according to the upperpunks of this world, Billy Lovelady, who was a rapidly balding young man, had remarkably stable hair retention for 7 years, and then it all started falling out pronto between 1964 and 1967. Hmmm. Nope. I'm no buying that. I think this progression makes much more sense:

So, the FBI image of Lovelady was falsified. The FBI gave him the same false hairline they gave to Doorman, and it all started with Young Lovelady. 

The hairline on the left is real; the other two are fake. Doorman had Oswald's hairline- him being Oswald and all. It's the one thing they changed to "lovelady-ify" him. And that is what really happened.