Speaking of "predetermined" what's not predetermined about referring to Doorman as Lovelady in discussing the photos? Why not refer to him as Doorman and just make your case? After all, that is who "he" is: Doorman. We're debating whether he's Oswald or Lovelady, but it only obscures the matter to refer to Doorman as Lovelady. It is totally unnecessary and unhelpful. It certainly doesn't add clarity; it only adds confusion. What's the point of predetermining that he was Lovelady and then trying to argue that he was Lovelady? And yet, you accuse Chana of "predetermining" a result? Damn hypocrite is what you are.
Now, as far as the differences in the hairlines, it is something I have acknowledged, and it is due to photographic alteration. They altered Doorman's hairline to give him that of Lovelady from the 1950s.
Those hairlines are identical, but on the left is NOT what Lovelady's hairline was in 1963. He was a rapidly balding young man and between 1957 and 1963, he lost a lot of hair. So, those two hairlines should NOT match because there is no way that 1963 Lovelady was a match to 1957 Lovelady, nor is there any chance that 1963 Oswald was a match to 1957 Lovelady. Yet, match they do. This must be what Doorman's hair originally looked like before they altered the photo:
Look: they saw Oswald in the photo, and they decided that they were going to say he was Lovelady. But, they were never going to just say it. They were never going to be confident that all they had to do was tell the rubes that he's Lovelady and that on their word alone they would accept it. These people (the conspirators) were very arrogant, but they weren't that arrogant. They knew that, to have credibility, they had to do something to turn Oswald into Lovelady. And what they did was give him that hairline that we see in the Altgens photo. They just didn't realize that Lovelady had lost a lot of hair by then. They didn't know him, and nobody told them. Really, it's like a comedy of errors.
But let's look at it precisely. In a word, Doorman had "central recession" while Oswald did not. That sums it up. If you draw a vertical line up from the bridge of the nose, right in the center of the forehead, on Doorman you get to a bald spot, while on Oswald you get to hair. Doorman had central recession; Oswald did not.
Alright, so that's the difference, and again, I say it's due to fraud, criminal, felonious, and I might add "bloodied" photographic fraud. But, let's just put that aside. Since it's in dispute, let's look at them and compare them without considering the hairlines. Because after all, if they are different men, then they should look different- even without their hairlines being included. And if they are the same man, you should still be able to tell without their hairlines being included. So, either way, it should work. Now consider these:
First of all, is it the same man? You can't see the frontal hairline, but I presume you are willing to admit that it is the same man. And I presume you recognize him as Tricky Dick Nixon.
So, you see, you don't need the hairline. It helps to have it, but you don't need it. And if two men are standing next to each other wearing hats (which cover their hairlines) I assume you are still going to be able to distinguish them. So, let's try it with Doorman and Oswald.
So, we are leaving the hairlines out of the comparison. Hey, if they are different men, it should still be obvious. It's not as though Oswald and Lovelady were identical from the forehead down. So, let's see somebody find disparity between these two:
If they are different men, you should be able to see it. If they are different men, you MUST be able to see it.
And, we have other similar comparisons that are equally as good, which is to say, flawless.
Again: two different men would not be identical from the forehead down, but these (above) are identical. And that proves that they are the same man. Again: it is not as though Oswald and Lovelady were identical from the forehead down.
The hairline dichotomy is the ONLY dichotomy between Doorman and Oswald, but it is a false dichotomy. It is man-made: by the killers of JFK.