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

For a long time, we have known that Oswald's clothing is a spot-on match to Doorman's, but now from Larry Rivera's latest work, we know that Oswald's face is also a spot-on match to Doorman's- except for one thing: the hairline.

But, take a look at this. It's a page from the HSCA Final Report. It shows the image of Young Lovelady, the one whose hairline matches Doorman's. But, look what they did. They flipped it!

That is definitely and absolutely a mirror image. It's the exact opposite of what it should be. On Doorman, we see the forward tab on the other side of his head.

In order to produce the above collage, I had to flip the image of Young Lovelady from the HSCA. So, they definitely published a flipped image. But, it was no accident. Definitely not. And that's because they had the original, which they provided to their anthropologists in the proper orientation.

So, they had both; the original and the flipped. And the way we know that is that the anthropologists correctly observed the way the hairlines matched, as you see above. If they were working with the flipped image, they would have observed that they were opposite, that they were mirror images of each other. 

So, the HSCA had both the flipped image and the correct image. They gave the correct image to their anthropologists but they published the flipped image in their Final Report.

  

So, why did they publish the flipped image? I think it was because they did not want readers to register on just how perfectly the hairlines matched: in length, recession, lay, style, etc. There were, after all, years in-between, and hair is an ever changing and especially so in a rapidly balding young man. They also lied and said that the above image was taken close to the time of the assassination. LIE!  That image was from the 1950s. They claimed 1959 but it was probably more like 1957, considering how young he looks. 

They had that photo in 1963, and they used it to alter Doorman's hairline, and that's why they didn't publish it in 1963. And that's why they flipped it when they published it in 1979. They didn't want the world to know what they did. 

What's the alternative? That they accidentally and innocently published a flipped image? There was nothing accidental or innocent about what they did. It was all stone-cold calculation of the Machiavellian kind. 

In 1963, they had to do something to Lovelady-ify Oswald, and they settled on his hairline. That is what they moved over, and that is not in doubt.