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

It's significant that after the passage of 12 years, the HSCA felt it necessary to devote MORE time and attention to the Doorman issue than the Warren Commission did.  It's like they were determined to resolve the thing once and for all- to put it to sleep, permanently. 

But, look at what they did. First, they had Robert Groden do photo comparisons (which the Warren Commission could easily have done but didn't), but look how they went about it. They did it without including ANY images of Oswald at all. They NEVER put an image Oswald in his shirt side by side with Doorman. They used several images of Lovelady, but none of Oswald. Can you believe that? 

Think about it for a second: you're trying to determine which of two men is the person seen in another image. So, you compare both of them to the disputed image, right? Why didn't Robert Groden do that? Was it his idea to omit any and all images of Oswald, or was he instructed to do so? Look at this display. Why are there no images of Oswald?

Groden has got 3 images of Lovelady there and 0 of Oswald. 
Groden has got 3 images of Lovelady there and 0 of Oswald. 
Groden has got 3 images of Lovelady there and 0 of Oswald. 
Groden has got 3 images of Lovelady there and 0 of Oswald. 

That is bloodied! That is screaming out loud bloodied! How dare he do that? 

And then there were the anthropologists. They did minute facial measurements of Oswald and Lovelady, although they didn't show their work. But, they said that poor image quality prevented them from including Doorman. Then what was the point of it? The whole idea was to compare each of them to Doorman, not to each other. 

They did notice the resemblance between Doorman's hairline and that of Lovelady, which was awfully observant of them. But, it was a match to an image of Lovelady from the 1950s. And, it was the primary image of him they used. But, they knew Lovelady was a rapidly balding young man. They assigned the year 1959 as the date of the image, although they did not substantiate that. Dr. Cinque thinks it went back further than that, and that's based on his apparent age, which is young. 

Billy Lovelady was born in 1939, so if he was 19 or 20 in that picture, as he appears to be, it would go back to 1956 or 1957. Again, the HSCA said 1959, but as they provided no proof of that, we are not going to accept their word for it just because they said it. No can do. I think it goes back to '56 or '57. 

And yes, the hairlines match, but we know Lovelady was a rapidly balding young man. So, why assume his hairline remained stable between 1957 and 1963? That's 6 years. Here he is in 1967:

Robin Unger posted that image flipped, but I unflipped it. But, you can see that he was almost completely bald on top in 1967, and that picture was taken by CBS News. 

And then we have the images by Mark Lane from 1964, including this one. Clearly, Lovelady was mostly bald even by '64.

So, the one matching thing noted by the HSCA anthropologists that actually was true should not have even been found. It doesn't make sense to think that rapidly balding Billy Lovelady had a stable hairline for 6 whole years. 

And note that it's not just the hairline that is the same, but the length of the hair, the lay of the hair, the style of the hair. Everything about it is exactly the same. 

If we took a picture of you today and compared it to one of you from 6 years ago, would your hair look exactly the same? In lay, in length, in style?  I ask that question of everyone and anyone. 

So, the one thing the HSCA anthropologists found is actually an abomination. And that brings us to their other major failing: they never broached the question of photographic alteration, that is, the criminal altering of a forensic photo.  

So, why didn't they broach the subject? They didn't broach it because: this is the United States of America, and every red-blooded American knows that we don't do things like that over here. They did it Nazi Germany. They did it in Soviet Russia. But, they would never do that here; not in the good old USA. Not our democratic government. Therefore, the question was never asked. It would never have been allowed. If anybody had tried to ask it, they would have been dismissed. It really isn't allowed today. It isn't politically-correct to ask the question; to accuse the US government of criminally altering evidence. 

But fortunately, it's happening anyway. The number of JFK buffs who recognize and acknowledge Zapruder film alteration- and again, that's the criminal altering of a forensic film- is probably at least half the JFK community. And, the number recognizing Altgens photo alteration isn't as great as that, but it may be a third, which is pretty darn good. And I'm sure the percentage is growing and will continue to grow. 

The bottom line is that this started bloodied, and it continues to be bloodied. The defense of the bloodied is bloodied. And will they actually kill more people to keep their lie going? I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me; I wouldn't put it past them. The killing of JFK was an atrocity, but the ongoing cover-up is also an atrocity. And the people involved today in continuing it- in holding up the vicious lie that Oswald killed Kennedy- are as vicious as the people who actually did it back in 1963.