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

Now, we are going to look at the falsehoods of Professor Megan Knuth, who, like Dr. John McAdams, is a Political Science professor. Her article denying Oswald in the doorway, which is published by McAdams, has great visibility and exposure online. It is very well placed on the search engines. Here it is:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/oswald_doorway.htm

But, it is not only devoid of any valid reasoning, but it contains many false statements, which I shall disclose. If this were a basketball game, it would be fair to say that Knuth never put the ball through the hoop even once; she never scored a point. 

Professor Knuth started by making an admission: that the Man in the Doorway looks "uncannily similar" to Oswald. Duh! That is true, Dr. Knuth, and it speaks volumes. That's because we all know how unusual it is to see someone who looks "uncannily similar" to someone else- unless they are closely related-and it is not something we take for granted or expect. And when that "uncannily similar" person is also dressed the same as the other person, it puts it in the Twilight Zone. 

Next, Dr. Knuth reviewed the Warren Commission testimonies but under false assumptions. That's because: THERE WAS NO CHANCE THE WARREN COMMISSION WOULD ALLOW ANYONE TO SAY THAT THEY SAW OSWALD OUTSIDE. 

Seriously, do you think there is any chance that if someone had wanted to claim he saw Oswald outside that they would have allowed it to happen and included it in the Warren Report? That is extremely naive.  This is what would have happened if someone had tried to do that: Big, tall, brawny men in dark suits and sunglasses who spoke in gruff voices would have visited that person and told him or her- in no uncertain terms- that they didn't see Oswald outside, that they are mistaken about it, and that they had better not say it again, in public or in private- if life as they know it is of value to them. 

So, it is totally unwarranted to put any weight on these testimonies when it was a rigidly controlled and manipulated process whose outcome was predetermined. 

Dr. Knuth mentioned that there were witnesses who testified that Lovelady was outside. But so what? He definitely was outside. Nobody denies it.  Oswald and Lovelady were both outside.   

But, Knuth mentioned three witnesses who were shown the Altgens photo and asked to identify Lovelady, and they were Buell Frazier, Danny Arce, and Mrs. Donald Baker. As the record shows, they all identified Doorman as Lovelady, although Mrs. Baker was hardly emphatic about it. She said: "That looks like Billy." It's hardly a stirring endorsement.  

But, here is the bottom line: there were 75 employees of the Texas Book Depository, many of whom knew Lovelady. So, why did they pick those 3 in particular to ask? Anyone who knew Lovelady could have been asked. It didn't have to be someone who was standing outside with him or was even there that day. So, the fact that they came up with 3 people out of 75 to vouch for Lovelady as Doorman is hardly impressive, and when you realize that anyone vouching for Oswald would have been automatically and summarily excluded and warned to shut the hell up, it's actually meaningless. 

Then Professor Knuth told an outright lie. She said: "Lovelady, of course, identified himself (as Doorman)." And then to substantiate that, he provided an FBI letter in which THEY, the FBI, said that Lovelady said it. 

But wait! We don't believe the FBI, Professor Knuth. We think the FBI was in on the murder, and we know they were in on the cover-up. It would be different if they had sat Lovelady down in front of a sea of microphones and press cameras, and we heard him say it, HIMSELF. But, that didn't happen. The FBI saying it means NOTHING.

In his Warren Commission testimony, Lovelady NEVER claimed to be Doorman. In his Warren Commission testimony, Joseph Ball NEVER even asked Lovelady if he was Doorman. Instead, he only asked Lovelady to draw an arrow to himself on the Altgens photo. And Lovelady did- to another figure, not Doorman. 

  
The whole nervous exchange between Ball and Lovelady was a very sordid affair, but the bottom line is that Billy Lovelady, when asked, drew an arrow to another person who was standing east of Doorman, a figure we call Black Hole Man. That is who Lovelady designated as himself. 

Dr. Knuth never mentioned that the Warren Commission had images of Oswald and Lovelady with which to compare to Doorman. But, they did have them. So, they could have done their own photo analysis. But, they didn't. Why didn't they? Dr. Knuth doesn't know or care. 

Dr. Knuth thinks that the carefully selected testimonies should have settled the matter- even though Lovelady's interview was a fiasco. And the only reason it didn't settle it, according to Knuth, is because of an FBI mistake. 

That mistake was in revealing that Lovelady stated that he wore a red and white striped shirt and blue jeans on the day of the assassination. AND THE FBI PHOTOGRAPHED HIM WEARING THOSE CLOTHES, AND THEY EVEN SPRAWLED HIS SHIRT OPEN, LIKE DOORMAN'S.

WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT IF IT WASN'T THE SAME CLOTHES? WHY WOULD YOU MIMIC THE LOOK UNLESS HE WAS DRESSED IN THE SAME CLOTHES??????

That's a problem alright, but the resolution of it, according to Dr. Knuth, is that Josiah Thompson reported hearing from someone at CBS that Lovelady denied saying that he wore the short-sleeved striped shirt. What????? 

I know Dr. Knuth is a Poly Sci professor and not a law professor, but doesn't she know that hearsay evidence is not admissible in court? The year was 1967, and Lovelady was still alive and well at the time. So, why didn't someone go talk to him directly and get him to make a statement, and preferably under oath? Why should such a statement by Josiah Thompson of what he was told by someone at CBS matter at all? A glib comment about it in Thompson's book Six Seconds in Dallas resolved everything? Is that how it works for you, Professor Knuth? 

Next, Dr. Knuth jumps to the HSCA investigation of the issue, which involved two things: a bevy of anthropologists and Robert Groden.

Robert Groden was supposed to compare images of Oswald and Lovelady to Doorman to determine which of them Doorman was. And he took fresh pictures of Lovelady to include in the analysis. Do you know how many images of Oswald he included? None. Zero. Zed. Zilch. Naught. I kid you not. He never put an image of Oswald side by side with Doorman. Groden NEVER made a collage of Oswald and Doorman, such as this:

The only thing Groden did to include Oswald in the study was to include an image of Oswald's shirt, but frankly, I don't think it was Oswald's shirt.   

  
That was CE 150, the shirt image published by the Warren Commission. But, was it really Oswald's shirt? I have my doubts. It doesn't look like Oswald's shirt. It has none of the form, the lay, and the folds of Oswald's shirt. 

With so many images of Oswald wearing his shirt, why didn't Groden use one of those images? If the shirt was on Oswald's back, he could at least be sure it was Oswald's actual shirt. Why instead did Groden rely on an image of the shirt by itself provided by the Warren Commission?  Why trust them? 

Oswald's shirt had a jacket-like fold on the left side, which you can easily see above. And Oswald's shirt wasn't purple; it was brown. So, why did Robert Groden accept the shirt that they were showing him? And of course, it wasn't a shirt; it was just a picture of a shirt. But, he didn't need their picture. He had access to all the images of Oswald WEARING his shirt, and those are the images he should have used. He should have never separated the shirt from the back of Oswald. The ONLY shirt you can know to be Oswald's is one that you see hanging on his back. That's it!  

I say that during the HSCA investigation, Robert Groden was a traitor to the cause of JFK truth. He sold out. He could have taken Lovelady to Dallas and photographed him in the doorway just like Altgens did. Nobody would have stopped him. No one stopped Ralph Cinque in 2012, so no one would have stopped Robert Groden in 1976. Instead, Groden took worthless pictures of Lovelady wearing a plaid shirt at his home in Colorado. What did that prove? It only proved that Lovelady could wear a plaid shirt. It did not prove that he wore that shirt in the doorway on 11/22/63. 

And, Robert Groden made some blatantly false statements. He said that "in pattern and color, the shirt of the spectator is a better match to Lovelady's plaid than Oswald's tweed." That is a lie. There is NO pattern on Doorman's shirt. The contrast we see isn't pattern, but rather: haze, distortion, and light reflection. That's all it is. 

No shirt manufacturer would make a shirt with the "pattern" of Doroman's. The crux of Lovelady's shirt pattern is: horizontal and vertical lines crossing and forming squares or boxes. How many boxes do you see on Doorman's shirt? There isn't a single one. That vague, splotchy pattern is not a pattern at all. What shirt manufacturer would design such a pattern and expect to sell the shirt? That splotchyness is just the result of taking a very small image and blowing it up. Haze, distortion, and light reflection is all we're looking at, and none of it corresponds in any way to Lovelady's plaid pattern. And when you get rid of it by applying a haze filter, you wind up with Oswald's grainy pattern.

Why didn't Robert Groden put those two images side by side? Why didn't he observe that both Oswald and Doorman wore an unbuttoned, sprawled open, outer shirt, with a vastly exposed white t-shirt that had a notched margin? That is a very distinctive outfit, and it is exactly the same on Oswald and Doorman. What are the odds that Billy Lovelady woke up that morning and decked himself out the exact same way? And, we know for a fact that he didn't. 

Another failing of Robert Groden is that he never questioned the authenticity of the most widely used image of Lovelady from 11/22/63, which is the image of Gorilla Man from the Martin film.

Those are not the same man, and you don't have to be a doctor or anatomist to know it. And, Lovelady wasn't even outside in front of the building at the time the image on the right was taken. He had left already for the railroad tracks with Bill Shelley, and he never returned to the front of the building. That man on the right, whom we call "Gorilla Man" was a Lovelady impostor. And, I don't say he was there on 11/22/63. I say that they phonied-up the film afterwards and put him in it. And it wasn't the only time they did such a thing. They also put a phony Lovelady at the desk in the squad room at the Dallas PD. It's outrageous the things they did. 

Regarding the HSCA anthropologists, they compared a flipped image of Oswald to a flipped image of Lovelady, except that it was Lovelady from the 1950s. 

When I say "flipped" I mean left-to-right flipped: the mirror image. The image on the right of Lovelady was said to be from 1959, but it probably went back to 1957, judging by how young he looks.  

But, this is what Professor Knuth said about the HSCA anthropologists: 

"They used the tools of forensic anthropology, by which the metric and morphological characteristics of the human face can be analyzed. Going far beyond the causal and subjective 'looks like' kind of analysis, they used the Penrose distance statistic to show that the man in the doorway had features very different from Oswald's."

In actual fact, they only took minute measurements of Oswald's and Lovelady's faces, and not Doorman's. For Oswald and Lovelady, they compared facial length, lower jaw breadth, chin length, forehead breadth, nasal breadth, nasal tip, forehead height, and hairline contour. But, when it came to Doorman, they said:

 "The enlargements of the spectator's face are not of sufficient quality to permit accurate measurements."

What???????  If they couldn't include Doorman, what was the point of it all?  Taking minute measurements of Oswald and Lovelady could only show their differences, but it couldn't determine who Doorman was. 

But, they did note the likeness of Doorman's hairline to Young Lovelady's. However, the only way the likeness manifests is if you unflip the image of Lovelady:

The image on the left was unflipped by me, and as far as I know, I am the first to ever unflip it. And that is the correct depiction; it is definitely the right orientation.  

Doorman's hairline was falsified to make it look like Lovelady's. It's the one thing they did to Lovelady-ify him. They moved the "cap" of Young Lovelady over to Doorman. You might say they topped him off. 

As arrogant as the plotters were, even they knew that official pronouncements alone would not suffice to convince the public that Doorman was Lovelady. However, giving him Lovelady's hairline was VERY clever because we look at people from the top down, and the fact is: the hairline contributes mightily to our entire impression of how a person looks. If they were going to change just one thing, it was a very good choice. And here is the result:

On the left is how Doorman must have looked before they messed with the photo, and on the right is what resulted from their evil machinations. 

Returning to Dr. Knuth, she said this:

"Indeed, Groden contacted Lovelady, asked him to don the shirt he had worn on November 22, 1963, and photographed him in it. The shirt, of course, was entirely consistent with all the photos from the day of the assassination."

Entirely consistent? See what you think:

What we are seeing on the right is a shirt that was pressed and perhaps starched to artificially create a sprawl that looked like Doorman's. But obviously, it is not the same. And neither is it the natural, normal lay of that shirt. It's not how it is supposed to be worn. Moreover, there is no reason to think that Lovelady wore it that way on November 22, 1963. He didn't wake up that morning and do all that primping and pressing just to go to work to lay flooring on the dusty 6th floor of the Book Depository. Note also the high, round t-shirt on Lovelady, in contrast to Doorman's vee. And as I said, there is nothing plaid about Doorman's shirt- not a single box. It has no horizontal and vertical lines crossing forming boxes. A vague, hazy splotch is not equivalent to plaid. There is no basis to claim that those patterns are the same. 

Then, Dr. Knuth said that:  "Even Jim Marrs states in his book Crossfire that "most researchers today are ready to concede that the man may have been Lovelady."

Well, Professor Knuth, apparently, hasn't read the latest edition of Crossfire:

Professor Knuth then said: "The most bizarre thing about all this is that Oswald himself admitted to being inside the building."

No, Professor Knuth. Oswald told Captain Will Fritz that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front."

Then, Dr. Knuth cites the well-known exchange with the reporter in the hallway in which Oswald never said he went outside. But so what? Oswald didn't know that his picture was taken outside. What exonerates Oswald about being in the doorway is the fact that his picture was taken in the doorway, but Oswald didn't know about the picture. But, when Oswald was alone with police he told them that he was out with Bill Shelley in front. That trumps it. That prevails. That wins the day. 

And technically, Oswald was out the door, but he was still within the confines of the building. He was surrounded by building on 5 sides: above, below, left, right, and back. It was like he was in a long cave. If you were in a long cave, would you consider yourself inside or out? And I've been there, and I can tell you: it feels like a cave when you're in that doorway.  

Besides, it really doesn't matter what anybody said- including Oswald. That's because we have numerous photos of Oswald and Lovelady with which to compare to Doorman, and we can determine for ourselves- with our own eyes- who Doorman was. 

Doorman was Oswald. Everything about his clothing is Oswald. And everything about his physicality is Oswald with the exception of his hairline, which I have already addressed; it is the one thing they altered. And it is definitive. It is absolutely impossible- in the universe in which we live- for Doorman NOT to be Oswald. 

  

These are the image comparisons that Robert Groden SHOULD have used in 1976 but didn't. Of course, the HSCA would not have let him, but even so: he could have blown the case wide open.  

Unfortunately, Professor Megan Knuth is just another mouthpiece for the official story that Oswald killed Kennedy. She is part of the cover-up. And in my book, those who do that are accessories after the fact in the murder of JFK.  

Oswald was innocent; completely and totally innocent. He was standing in the doorway at the time of the murder, just clasping his hands, which was his ingrained habit. 

He was just a patsy, and he said so himself. 

Professor Knuth, you and your kind can't keep the truth hidden forever. You can't possibly win. The truth about what happened, including Oswald's innocence, will become public knowledge, and the only question is when. 

The lies of the Nazis about their atrocities fell; the lies of the Soviets about their atrocities fell; and the lies of the US government about their atrocities shall fall too, starting with the JFK assassination.