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

This is the Lovelady page of the OIC website, and everything I have been saying here about there being fake films of Lovelady in a plaid shirt can be found there:

http://www.oswald-innocent.com/lovelady.html

I have been doing this for 5 years now, and over that time, there have been a few minor things I have had to retract, and I mean very few. And I am very proud of something: nothing that I have ever put up on the OIC website have I had to remove for being wrong. Absolutely nothing. And I know the reason why: it's because I don't put anything on that site unless I am absolutely sure that it is accurate. I am absolutely sure that my position on the false Loveladys is accurate, and that is why it is there on that page and shall remain there. 

Where does the certainty come from? It comes from the fact that there are multiple and overlapping reasons why I know I am right. Let us count the ways:

1) There is no chance that Lovelady was milling around outside the TSBD after the assassination to be photographed there because he left right away, never to return, and we have that from Lovelady, from Shelley, and from Frazier, including long testimonies which could not possibly have been faked without the help of a topnotch Hollywood screenwriter.      

2) Lovelady said repeatedly that the last time he saw Oswald was at 11:50 AM when they broke for lunch. Some have tried to claim that Lovelady assumed that the questioner only meant at the TSBD. But, Lovelady made no such assumption and would not have. And even if he did, considering what it concerned- the murder of President Kennedy- he surely would have cleared it with the questioner. 

"Did you mean just at the Book Depository? Because I did see him later that afternoon at the police station, but if you meant when did I last see him at work, it was at 11:50 when we broke for lunch." 

And keep in mind that when first asked, it was phrased, "Did you EVER see Oswald again THAT DAY?" That specifically lays out the parameters. So, if he was going to err at all, he would have erred on the side of including the encounter at the PD. 

And why not? Did it cost anything? Why would anyone, who was in good faith, who was not trying to hamper the investigation, not pray tell about that? 

3) The FBI put in writing TWICE that Lovelady said that he wore a short-sleeved striped shirt. And then they photographed him in the shirt and had him splay it open like Doorman. In other words, he was posing as Doorman when they photographed him. What would be the point if he was not wearing the same clothes. The whole idea of doing that is, "Compare me to Doorman. You see: I'm wearing the same clothes; and the clothes are arranged the same way."

And I believe that someone tried very hard to get Lovelady's shirt to spread apart like Doorman's. It didn't work. If you look at the side of his shirt on our left, it isn't spread over at all. But, the other side looks like it got some help. He didn't just unbutton his shirt. He or someone pushed it over to create the sprawl.

I'm saying that someone pushed that material over on our right to make it gap the way we see on Doorman (although it's far from being the same). So, this was an all-out effort to recreate the Doorman look. Why would you do it unless it was the same clothes?

And how could there be a misunderstanding about such a straightforward question?

FBI Man: What clothes were you wearing?
Lovelady: I wore a red and white striped shirt and blue jeans.

How does that go wrong? How does that get discombobulated? If Lovelady had said: "I wore a long-sleeved plaid shirt" don't you think they would have gotten that?

I'll tell you what happened: those two FBI agents screwed up badly. It sailed right over their heads that Lovelady could not possibly be Doorman BECAUSE HE WORE A SHORT-SLEEVED SHIRT. It just completely failed to register with them. And their bone-headed mistake caused the FBI to have to go into the movie business and to keep doctoring the mistake down through the years, the decades, and even now in the 21st century. 

4) There is absolutely nothing that matches between Gorilla Man and Doorman.

There is nothing, nothing at all that matches, and that certainly includes the shirt patterns. They do not match at all. On Gorilla Man, there are so many squares, you could play checkers on it. On Doorman, there isn't a single square.

5) the Lovelady figures from the squad room scene are not only vastly different in their physicality- polar opposite in every way- but the entire clips are different. Here they are:

Even if you want try to say that they were done by different cameramen, it was a very small room. An extremely small room. And those two cameramen would surely have had the same intent, which was to keep the camera on Oswald. The idea that they could have come out as radically different as these two are is preposterous. 

The top one is from the David Wolper propaganda film, Four Days in November, which came out in 1964. Supposedly, it looked just like what I posted, but nobody noticed Lovelady there and talked about it until 1977.  What I'm saying is that if the Wolper film showed it in 1964, someone would have noticed Lovelady there before 1977. So, what I think happened is that they watched the Wolper film, which had a lot of PD footage, and they looked for a place that they could stick Lovelady, to showcase his plaid shirt. Someone saw that empty desk and said, "Bingo! We'll stick him at the desk." It's not as though anyone had DVD of it at home. And if someone tried to say: "I've seen this before, and I don't recall seeing Lovelady there" the reply would have been: "You just don't remember."  

And the other version with the other Lovelady is from Three Shots That Changed America which didn't come out until 2009. 

Why did they do it over? It's clear they weren't happy with the original. But, another consideration is that the technology had come so far that they probably thought they could do it much better. But, it was extremely arrogant because what if someone compared the two disparate versions? Someone did.

Neither one of these stories makes sense. Neither one of those guys are looking at Oswald. And remember that, supposedly, Lovelady had to see them coming. He had to see the big cop in the white hat leading Oswald at the front of the pack. So, wouldn't he have fixed his gaze on Lovelady then? He worked with him. And now he's being brought in under suspicion of having killed the President of the United States. How do you not look at him? How could you possibly look anywhere else?

I could go on, but I believe I have made the point, that it is the multiple and overlapping incredulities that make it a sure bet that the whole thing is a lie. And I'm not kidding; I am not being rhetorical; and I am not exaggerating when I say that I would bet my life on it. I really would.