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

This is an important debate that took place on March 13, 2010 between Professor John McAdams and Tom Rossley. 

http://wn.com/tom_rossley

You know who John McAdams is, the outspoken defender of JFK officialdom. Tom Rossley defends Oswald, and his website is: 

http://whokilledJFK.net 

What stood out to me the most is what they discussed at the beginning, which was: Oswald in the doorway. Rossley insists that the Man in the Doorway of the Altgens photo was Oswald. 

Note that this debate took place 1 1/2 years before I entered the scene and started championing Oswald in the doorway. And it was over 2 years before the Oswald Innocence Campaign commenced. From the beginning, my opponents have been saying that it is all resolved, all settled, and everyone agrees it's Lovelady in the doorway. Well, that is bull.  Before Ralph Cinque, before James Fetzer, before Richard Hooke, before the OIC, there were researchers saying it was Oswald in the doorway, and Tom Rossley is one of them. 

Note that the first thing out of Rossley's mouth about it was THE SHIRT. It's Oswald's shirt on Doorman. You can recognize it at a glance. And when you think about it you realize: Who could be wearing Oswald's shirt except Oswald? It's not as though Oswald and Lovelady wore identical shirts that day. 

Rossley also referred to TWO FBI letters (that's right; he said two, Backes)  in which they stated that Lovelady claimed to have worn a short-sleeved shirt with vertical stripes on 11/22.

But, I want to harp on what McAdams said. He said that there were other photos besides the Altgens photo showing the Doorway Man which confirm that he was Lovelady. But, that's not true. There are no other photos, but there are films which show him. The only authentic one is the one from the opening of the Wiegman film, which shows him to be Oswald. 

Above is Lee Harvey Oswald on both sides. All of the other film images purportedly showing Lovelady are fake, including the one McAdams mentioned, which is the Dallas PD footage of Lovelady in the squad room with Oswald. 

If the whole issue of fake imagery isn't going to be discussed, then the truth about the JFK assassination is never going to be known. The presumption that every JFK-related image is legitimate is not only naive, it is incredibly stupid. The JFK assassination must be the most photographically altered event in human history, and it is certainly true for one-day events. What I have to wonder about John McAdams is if he knows full-well that there are fake images. But regardless, much of what he said was outright lies. For instance, he said that Doorman's shirt is a match to Lovelady's not Oswald's, and it's clear from the PD footage. But, it's not true. Doorman's shirt isn't plaid. It isn't anything close to plaid. 

Those shirts are NOT the same. They are not even close to being the same. Look at the upper left quadrant of Doorman's shirt. It has no pattern at all. Yet, Lovelady's shirt had flashy, geometric pattern all the way up to and including the collar. They can't possibly be the same shirt. 

Lovelady's shirt had both horizontal and vertical lines, but Doorman's shirt had no vertical lines, and none of its thick horizontal streaks correspond to Lovelady's fine lines. In other words: nothing matches. There is complete dissimilarity. 

You see how easy it is to lie? You just have to make affirmative statements that sound confident where you don't have to back them up with evidence. You just have to be assertive and matter-of-fact in your manner of speech, and you can win over a lot of people. 

This is really monstrous, and it is a nightmare. Not only was that guy not Doorman, he wasn't even Lovelady. Lovelady was 26 at the time. Does that slumped guy on the left look 26 to you?  He's a middle-aged man! And not only was he not Lovelady, he wasn't even there. Nobody was sitting at that desk in the squad room. And not only was nobody sitting at that desk in the squad room, but the whole scene was artificially spliced together with the footage that preceded it in order to make it look like a continuous stream of action- which it wasn't. They even painted on Oswald's half-hanging shirt to make it consistent with the frames that came before. He was really in just a t-shirt at the time.

Look how fake that shirt looks. It was painted on, by whatever means existed then that corresponds to Photoshop today. There is so much fakery involved with this footage, it is staggering to behold. 

Next, McAdams cites that Lovelady said he was in the doorway. Well, he was; it's just that he wasn't the Doorway Man. And in his Warren Commission testimony, Lovelady never said he was the Doorway Man. And not only did he never say he was the Doorway Man, but he was never even asked if he was the Doorway Man. Joseph Ball shrewdly avoided the question with Lovelady. And in the end, Lovelady drew an arrow to another figure in the Altgens doorway to indicate himself.

But note that he and Ball talked around it the whole time, neither of them ever enunciating who they were talking about. But, Lovelady showed us non-verbally. 

Of course, McAdams cited that there were several other TSBD employees who testified that Doorman was Lovelady. But, you need to think about it. There were 75 TSBD employees, and presumably, just about any of them could have been asked. So, why did they pick the few that they did? That they came up with three who said Doorman was Lovelady was pre-arranged. In other words, they deliberately brought in those who would say what they wanted to hear: that Doorman was Lovelady; and they deliberately excluded those who wouldn't. So, it was a sham. It was a show trial. And it means nothing.

Question: what if they knew someone was going to say that Doorman was Oswald? Was there any chance they would have taken such testimony and published it? Definitely not. So, the whole thing was a farce.    

Furthermore, the word must have spread very quickly that: nobody saw Oswald outside. If anyone tried to say it, they were surely approached. They were intimidated. They were threatened. And I mean just one step shy of being terrorized. The hammer and sickle came down hard. Or maybe I should say the swastika. 

Then McAdams got to the HSCA, and I tell you, my blood boils over at the thought of those bastards and what they did. They brought Robert Groden in, and I can just imagine how it went. First, they offered him money. They paid him; they paid him well. But, in his job interview, they made it clear- if only voiced between the lines- that they needed him to find for Lovelady. Could he do it? He assured them that he could. Groden wanted the gig. He wanted it badly. He wanted the money, and he wanted the prestige. He was going to be part of history! So, he assured them that he could deliver, that he could find for Lovelady.

So, he started his photo analysis, and never once did he put an image of Oswald next to Doorman. Can you imagine? He showcased several images of Lovelady (not recognizing that one was an impostor), but used not one image of Oswald. NOT ONE! 

He was supposed to determine which of two men was an unknown figure. Logic demanded that he compare both of them to the disputed figure. Stupid Robert Groden didn't do it. He left Oswald out of the comparison completely. 

Then McAdams covered the HSCA forensic anthropologists who did a fine and detailed comparison of the faces of Oswald and Lovelady, including taking "anthropometric"  measurements. It was supposed to be "scientific". But, they left out Doorman. The said his image was too blurry to take measurements. Then what was the point? It didn't matter now how much or little Oswald and Lovelady resembled each other; it only mattered how much each resembled Doorman. 

Tom Rossley wisely pointed out that they could always find "experts" to say what you want them to say. 

But, they did point out that Doorman's hairline was a better match to Lovelady, and McAdams said it too.  But, it was faked! It matched Lovelady's hairline in the 1950s, not 1963.

In the middle there, you've got Lovelady from the 1950s. The HSCA dated it to 1959, but I think 1957 is more realistic, considering how young he looks. But, Lovelady was a rapidly balding young man, and by the time he was 26 years old in 1963, he was already mostly bald. 

That was from the winter of 1964, so several months after the assassination. But, you can see how bald he was. He had very little hair on top and practically no hair in front. Look how it compares. 

So, what they did was use the image of Young Lovelady from the 1950s to fashion Doorman a new hairline. Here is how he must have looked before they altered it. 

The magnitude of the evil involved in this is breathtaking. And that's why anyone who studies it without looking at criminal photographic alteration is going to miss everything. They will completely misconstrue it. They will be left totally in the dark.

But, I have to wonder if John McAdams really believes his own hype. And is it really his? Or is he being coached? Granted, they've got a rotten hand to have to defend this crap. And, I suppose it's true that citing the hairline is the best they can do. But, when the hairline is the ONLY thing of Doorman's that matches Lovelady, when everything else matches Oswald, what have you got? You've got nothing. You've got shit. You've got screaming-out-loud fraud. And in the end, all they've really got are lies; blood-soaked lies, which shall not stand.