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

Alright, so the fake, phony, or perhaps just blind and inept, Oswald defenders who roam the forums will often say that, to them, to their eyes, Doorman looks exactly like Lovelady. And invariably, they say that without even posting the image of Lovelady to which they are referring. I have to hound them to put up an image up, and most of the time, they don't do it.  

But, one Rob Davidson did put up an image. He put up the soft version of the staged, planned, propped FBI photo of Lovelady from February 29, 1964. I pointed out to him that we know now that that photo was modified by the HSCA, that the original photo which J.Edgar Hoover sent to the Warren Commission was this:

Alright, so the question is whether these two images are the same man, whether they look "exactly alike" as one Barry Ivin put it. Well, as I've said before, anybody can say anything. Anybody can claim anything. Anybody can punch any keys on the keyboard any time that he or she wishes, and I can't stop them. But, what do the images objectively tell us? Let's start from the top and work down. First, the hairlines look pretty well-matched, but Lovelady didn't have that hairline in 1963. He was already practically bald on top by then. We have a quote from Roy Lewis who said that Lovelady's hair was "practically all gone on top". And, as I have stated a zillion times, Doorman's hairline was altered to conform to an earlier image of Young Lovelady from 1957. We have a genuine image of Lovelady from the time of the assassination which shows that he had less hair than appears in the FBI photo. 

That is from Mark Lane, and I trust Mark Lane. Don't you? So, that makes the matching hairline to Doorman in the FBI photo very, very suspicious. And, we really shouldn't be using it at all because we know that it's a staged, posed, propped photo from the FBI, who were trying very hard to sell the idea that Lovelady was Doorman. In other words, the FBI was not impartial; they were biased; extremely biased. Isn't it better, more reliable, and more trustworthy to use a natural, spontaneous, unstaged, unplanned photo of Lovelady, devoid of primping and editing? But let's move on to the eyes. The eyes don't match. Lovelady had a huge gap between his eyes and his eyebrows. It was like he had puffy eye-lids. 

On Doorman, we are see the close approximation of his eyes and his eye-lids, and it's the same on Oswald. It's in sharp contrast to Lovelady. Those eyes above are different. They are NOT the same eyes. And, if they are not the same eyes, they are NOT the same man. Let's move on to the nose.

They are NOT the same nose. Lovelady's nose, on the right, had a large, bulbous tip of cartilage while Oswald's (and Doorman's) noses were more chiseled. Also, Lovelady's nostrils were very small. That big shadow under Doorman's nose is the sign of a big, flared nostril, which Oswald had. Just compare the size of the shadows beneath their right nostrils. Doorman: large/ Lovelady: small. Doorman, like Oswald, had large flared nostrils. Lovelady had small, closed off nostrils. Different noses. And different noses means different men. Let's move on to the lower part of the face.

What we can observe is that Lovelady's chin on the right was longer, and it was more pointed. There is more of a squared-off bottom to Doorman's chin which matches Oswald's. Also, Doorman has a deeper cleft above the chin, which also is a match to Oswald. Oswald had the habit of tensing his mouth and pursing his lips: pressing his lips together hard. It was a very deeply entrenched emotional habit of his. Lovelady's lower face on the right looks more relaxed. Now, let's compare the ears.

The main thing we can observe here is that Lovelady's ears were larger, and he had a much larger and longer lobule, which is the soft, fleshy tissue at the bottom of the ear where the earring goes. Compare to Oswald, where the size of the lobule and everything else about the ear is spot-on perfect. 

Next, compare the overall stockiness. Doesn't Lovelady look to be a heavier, stockier man? Consider the thickness of the neck. Although Doorman's neck is in shadow, you still get a sense that his neck was not as thick and stocky as Lovelady's. And there was 40 pounds weight difference between Oswald and Lovelady. Doorman looks slender like Oswald. 

Finally, compare the clothing. We have it in writing-twice- that Lovelady told the FBI that those were the clothes he wore on 11/22/63: the red and white vertically striped shirt, which was short-sleeved. Notice that his t-shirt is high and round, unlike Dooman's, which was low and notched, like Oswald's. And notice that the FBI had Lovelady unbutton his shirt for the picture. Why? Because Doorman's shirt was unbuttoned, and they were trying to duplicate that. But, why would they bother unless it was the same clothes? So obviously, at the time they took the picture, they believed those were the clothes he wore on 11/22/63. Later, they retracted it when they realized that it ruled him out to be Doorman. 

Here now are all three, side by side:

The match of the man and the clothing is to Oswald, not Lovelady. The collage below shows Oswald's flared nostrils, which we can see on Doorman, as per the shadow. 

Except for the hairline, which, as I have said, is fake, the match is to Oswald in every way.

Every single thing (save the hairline) is spot-on perfect. So, let no one claiming to be an Oswald defender ever again say that the staged, posed, propped FBI photo of Lovelady is a better match to Doorman than Oswald because that is nonsense; it is absurd. When you compare them closely, you realize that FBI Lovelady and Doorman do NOT look the same, and far from it. 

I am going to bookmark this post, and any time anyone again glibly claims that Doorman is a match to FBI Lovelady, I am going to send them this link. They have no business even using the image of FBI Lovelady. Why? BECA|USE IT CAME FROM THE FBI! That's why. If you know that Oswald was framed and innocent, you have no business trusting ANYTHING from the FBI. Do I have to tell you that? Do I really have to tell you that? If so, then you should STOP calling yourself an Oswald defender. You can't defend him if you have your eyes closed and your mind shut-off.