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

David Von Pein just put this up on an old Amazon thread that I used to do. He doesn't date his posts, but the web address shows that it's from 2012. 

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/10/doorway-man-part-2.html

But, obviously, Von Pein is still comfortable with it. He thinks he beat me in the arm wrestle. He didn't. 

First, DVP suggests that Lovelady may have been wearing a v-neck t-shirt which we can see on Doorway Man.

Do you, or do you not, see the vee of the t-shirt in both images?

But, Von Pein's claim is ridiculous. Billy Lovelady ALWAYS wore a crewneck t-shirt- even when he was posing as Doorman. And even Oswald wore what was originally a crewneck t-shirt; it was only because he stretched it with his fingers that it became v-like. 

And Von Pein admitted that he has no answer to the vee t-shirt but that it doesn't matter because Lovelady admitted being Doorman.

I'll admit, I have no answers to those T-shirt questions, but, then too, I don't think it matters at all -- because Billy N. Lovelady is Doorway Man. That fact was proven for all time by Lovelady HIMSELF in 1964.

Hmmm. Von Pein is really stupid because the physical evidence trumps anybody's lip-flapping, including Lovelady's.  But, the fact is that in his 1964 testimony to Joseph Ball, Lovelady NEVER claimed to be Doorman, and he actually drew an arrow to another figure to indicate himself.

As I said, Oswald's t-shirt WAS indeed originally a round-neck one, and it's vee-ishness fluctuated a lot, depending on whether it was pulled down in front or down in back. If it was pulled down in back, the vee went away-almost completely. But, if it was pulled down in front, then the vee became apparent. Von Pein put up an image in which the vee is hard to discern at all.

But, that does not alter the fact that there are multiple images of him in which the vee is apparent.

Look, Von Pein, you are not a very bright guy, so I'll try to dumb this down for you. Doorman's identity has to be Oswald or Lovelady. Right? And we know that Lovelady's t-shirt NEVER looked vee: not even when he was posing as Doorman. The only one whose t-shirt EVER looked vee was Oswald. Now, the Man in the Doorway's t-shirt definitely looks vee, and since Oswald's t-shirt sometimes and often looked vee, it means that it could only be his. There is no basis to claim that it's Lovelady's, and there's no other candidate; just Oswald. Oswald gets this by default; it had to be him. 

Then, DVP relives an exchange he had with Colin Crow, in which Colin suggested that Oswald was given a fresh t-shirt for the Midnight Press Conference, explaining why his t-shirt didn't look vee there. But no, that is not the correct explanation. The correct explanation is mine: that it depended on whether Oswald's t-shirt was pulled down in front or in back, and when pulled down in back, the vee largely went away. And I'll note that even in the image that Colin Crow liked better, Oswald's t-shirt margin looks sunken. It doesn't look sharply vee, but it does look stretched and sunken.

So, it is still a better image for me to use than for them to use. That is vee-ish. Oswald's margin sunk well below his supra-sternal notch; Lovelady's didn't.

So, only obtuse people like Colin Crowe and David Von Pein would use that mug shot image to argue against Oswald wearing a v-neck t-shirt and being the man in the doorway.

Then, unbelievably, Von Pein, said this: 

You're now an expert on the subject of whether or not Billy Lovelady ever stretched his T-shirts into a "V" shape, is that it? You must be delusional.

Since we have images of Lovelady from 1964 to 1976 showing his t-shirt, including 1967 and 1971, in which he was always posing as Doorman, and his t-shirt was never stretched and sunken, we have every right to assume he didn't have such a t-shirt and do that. Most men don't do it. The default is that he didn't do it, and that would be true even if we had no images. But, we have multiple images, and we can see that he didn't do it. What more do you want, David Von Pein?

When you see a UNIQUE trait on someone in an image, and then you discover that there is evidence that one of two contenders had that UNIQUE trait, you therefore assume it's him. You don't assume that the other contender probably had it too- in spite of multiple images showing him without it. 

This comes down to PROBABILITY, and it comes down heavily on the side of it being Oswald's trait, Oswald's habit, and Oswald's t-shirt.

Next, Von Pein put up this image of the actor playing Wally Cleaver wearing a v-neck t-shirt, which he claims is from 1962:

This is irrelevant because I am NOT claiming it was a store-bought v-neck t-shirt, which apparently first came out in the early 60s, before 1963. Notice how deepy vee that shirt is, and neither Oswald's nor Doorman's vee ever looked as sharp and defined as that. So, it definitely wasn't a t-shirt like that. Furthermore, Oswald's t-shirt was obviously very old and tattered. It had to be several years's old. Certainly older than 1962. So again, this is completely and totally irrelevant.

Then, Von Pein brings up the Wiegman Doorman in which we don't see the vee, but the fact is that the distortion factor is just too great in the Wiegman film. And keep in mind that I firmly believe that they deliberately blurred the film to obscure Oswald. Remember, this wasn't a home movie camera. It was professional. It was NBC. It was state of the art. And this was the best they could do?

  
 So no, you can't use Wiegman to refute Altgens. The Altgens photo stands on its own merit. You can't dismiss it because of this other.

Then, Von Pein glibly says that freezing a frame can reduce the blurriness of it, as in this other Wiegman frame.

No, Von Pein. This image is less blurry because they allowed it to be seen less blurry which they could have done with the other one. This is NOT the same Doorman. It's a different guy. And he wasn't there. They put him into the film. They put a still image into the film.

The one in which he's looking down Elm Street like the others is real. The one of him staring straight ahead like a Cigar Store Indian is fake. 

By that point, Oswald had left. He had begun his trek to the lunch room. He used the one flight of stairs in the southeast corner of the building, which was close to the doorway.  But, since Oswald was now gone, they had to put this other guy in to take his place. 

They are different men. The one on the left is Oswald. The one on the right could be anybody; who knows. He certainly isn't the Altgens Doorman.

Who in his right mind would say that those two are the same man?

Then Von Pein cites Buell Frazier claiming that Doorman was Oswald at the mock trial. Yes, I know Frazier did that, but Frazier is an impeachable witness, and he could never stand up to rigorous cross-examination, which he didn't get at the mock trial. Then, there is this from the mock trial:

The fact is that Gerry Spence could have, and should have, played this a lot harder than he did at the mock trial. He should have been very aggressive about it. But, that was 1986, and this is 2017. We have the advantage today of computers. Look at what OIC Chairman Larry Rivera did:

Imagine if the jury at the mock trial had gotten to see that?

Then, DVP played this card: 

REPORTER -- "Did you shoot the President?"
LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "I work in that building."
REPORTER -- "Were you in the building at the time?"
LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir."


As I have stated before, this was a reporter not a police interrogator. Oswald didn't quibble about it because he didn't know that he was photographed in the doorway, which was still within the confines of the building.  To police, he said that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front." And the reasons why he had to be talking about the time of the assassination and not afterwards can be found here:

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

And yes, I do maintain, as DVP pointed out, that all the claimed images of Billy Lovelady from 11/22/63 were faked. The only real image of him is this one, in which you can see that he wore a short-sleeved shirt that day, as he originally stated.

Lovelady told the FBI that he wore a short-sleeved, vertically striped shirt and blue jeans, and he even posed for them wearing those clothes. Was it just a coincidence that he both wore them on 2/29/64 and said he wore them on 11/22/63? You'd have to be an idiot to believe that.  

So, all the images of Lovelady wearing a long-sleeved plaid shirt on 11/22/63 are fake. 

Then, Von Pein wants to treat as currency the FBI photos of Lovelady from Feb 1964 which was specifically created to sell the idea that he was Lovelady.

Lots of witchcraft, or I should say spycraft, went into fashioning that image of Lovelady, but below is an authentic photo of him taken by Mark Lane during the winter of  '64 in which we can see how he really looked:

That's what Lovelady's hairline really looked like. And I thank Almighty God for Mark Lane. 

Twice, that we know of, Lovelady denied encountering Oswald at the Dallas PD. The first time was in 1964 to Joseph Ball in which he denied EVER seeing Oswald again THAT DAY after they broke for lunch. And the second time was in 1976 to Ken Brooten during an informal deposition in which he gave the same answer to the same question. I'll add that Lovelady's chatty wife Patricia never cited the squad room encounter either, and she was more aggressive about it than he was. Even when she spoke directly to Harold Weisberg on the phone, she didn't cite it. She never said, "That's my Billy at the desk in the squad room." It's fake. It's not even him.

Does that look like a 26 year old to you? To me, he looks he could be the father of a 26 year old. And notice that his left elbow is resting on the desk, but what is his right elbow resting on? Mid-air? The whole image is fake; it was embedded into the film.  

But then, Von Pein gets into CE 369, and he eventually admits that his previous claim that the big arrow pointing to Doorman was Lovelady's must be false. That arrow is Frazier's. 

So, for how many years was David Von Pein a source of disinformation on this? I don't know, but it's a lot of years.

David Von Pein is one of the leading JFK disinformationists on the web. But, the fact is that, intellectually, he is very weak. He is not a smart man. And his writing can only appeal to other weak thinkers like himself. 

Oswald was standing in the doorway of the Book Depository at the time of the shots. We have his image there in the Altgens photo, in which we can identify BOTH his person and his clothing.

And that trumps everything and anything that anyone can cite. It is absolutely INSANE to think that Lee Harvey Oswald and Billy Lovelady looked that much alike and dressed that much alike on 11/22/63. But, the official story of the JFK assassination exists in an insane realm. It is institutionalized insanity. It is group-insanity. And fortunately, more and more people are becoming aware of that fact with each passing day. Stop the lies; Oswald outside.