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

As a post-script to my blog from last night, I will state again: why would anyone who defends Oswald cite the claims of a government investigation in regard to the man in the doorway? 

Case in point: Professor James Norwood. He claims to be an Oswald defender. Yet, he cites the Warren Commission's investigation of the Doorman issue as if it was honest and thorough and conclusive and objective. 

In reality, out of 75 TSBD employees, several who were pre-screened were selected to testify, vouching for Lovelady, of course. During this pre-screening, if anyone claimed it was Oswald, you can be sure they weren't selected. But, the FBI did the pre-screening, and you can be sure they pounced on that person, sounding like Trump talking to Kim Jong-un, "there will be fire; there will be fury; like you have never seen, etc." 

Look what happened to Carolyn Arnold. In her first statement, made on November 26, 1963, she said she saw Oswald at the doorway minutes before the shooting. But then in March 1964, her statement became that she didn't see Oswald at all. Were there others like her? We don't know, but what we do know is that the FBI descended on the TSBD like the Gestapo, making it clear to every employee that they didn't see Oswald when they weren't supposed to see him. 

And what is extremely telling about the WC's handling of the matter is Joseph Ball's interview of Billy Lovelady in which Lovelady NEVER stated that he was the Doorway Man. Don't you think that if Ball could have gotten Lovelady to state, explicitly, that he was the Doorway Man that he would have? And don't you think that if Lovelady had drawn his arrow to Doorway Man that Ball would have made a big deal out of it, stating out loud, for the record, that Lovelady drew his arrow to the same figure that Frazier did, to the disputed image of the white man standing next to the white column, above the "colored women" in the photo, as he put it? Instead, Ball and Lovelady talked around it, neither one specifying who they were talking about. It was like an Abbott and Costello Who's on first, What's on second routine. And then suddenly, Balls says, "So, you've got an arrow in the white and one in the dark pointing to you. Where were you standing?" I am citing that from memory. Without even trying to memorize it, I remember it, and that's because it riveted me. How could he say that without stipulating to what figure those arrows were pointed? The important thing wasn't that arrows were drawn or how many arrows there were, but where they were pointed, and Ball didn't say. And then he quickly changed the subject, never returning to it.

And just think: Lovelady, at any time, could have blurted out: "I am the Doorway Man." But, he never did. He had to know what Joseph Ball wanted to hear. Didn't he? He wasn't stupid, was he? He would have had to be stupid not to know. And yet, he couldn't do it. And that's because he wasn't the Doorway Man. 

But, he became the Doorway Man afterwards because afterwards, big, tall men in dark suits, sunglasses, and with gruff voices, must have visited him and explained why, for the sake of his health, he had better become the Doorway Man and fast. And Lovelady got that message.

The Warren Commission never compared images of Oswald and Lovelady to the Doorway Man. They could have. They should have. But, they didn't. But, the HSCA did. However, they didn't; not really. Robert Groden, in his photo analysis for the HSCA, never put an image of Oswald and Doorman side by side, such as this:

How do you not do that? And how do you not see the likeness of both the man and the clothing? 

Then, the HSCA anthropologists did a detailed comparison of the faces of Oswald and Lovelady, but it didn't include Doorman because his image was too blurry. So, all that detailed comparing served no purpose.  And, for some reason, the image of Lovelady that they were given to work with was one from the 1950s, which the HSCA falsely claimed was from the time of the assassination. And both that image and the image of Oswald which they were given, the HSCA published flipped. Did they give flipped images to the anthropologists? Apparently, they did. Here is the image they published:

Notice that the tuft of hair projecting forward is on the right side: 

759. Photographs of Lovelady and Oswald taken at a time close to the assassination indicate that, overall Lovelady's central hairline had receded more than Oswald's, resulting in Lovelady's higher forehead, as noted above; in addition, the recession on both sides of Lovelady's temple is more sharply advanced than Oswald's. Lovelady's recession was not uniform, and he has a downward projection in the hairline about one inch to the right of the center of his forehead. This eccentrically placed "widow's peak" was not observed in any of Oswald's photographs. 

The widow's peak is on the right side in the flipped photo, but in reality, it was on the other side. Here is the correctly oriented image:

Now, here is the crux, the nitty-gritty, of the matter:

759. The enlargements of the spectator's face are not of sufficient quality to permit accurate measurements. However, several features corresponding to Lovelady's traits can be discerned and subjectively assessed:
760. (a) A relatively broad, high forehead;
761. (b) Advanced recession of the hairline on each side of his head;
762. (e) Interruption of the central hairline by a downward extension located slightly to the right of the center of the forehead;
763. (d) A relatively long face with narrow jaws and a deep chin: and
764. (e) A rather bulbous nasal tip.

Yes, Doorman has a high forehead, but remember my contention: that the top of Lovelady's head was moved over to Doorman to turn Oswald into Lovelady. The issue of photographic alteration was never addressed by the committee, and not just never addressed, but never considered, never approached; it was never on their radar as something to look out for. But, I have to wonder if they were given a flipped image of Doorman too because the forward tuft of hair is on the left side of Doorman's head, not the right. 

 Here again is the flipped version of the image of Young Lovelady which was published by the HSCA:

Their forward tufts are on opposite sides. Can you see that?

Can you, or can you not see that those tufts are on opposite sides? 

It's always confusing talking about right and left because it depends on whose perspective. On Lovelady, for instance, the tuft is on our right, as we look at it, but it was actually the left side of his head. Unfortunately, the HSCA made no clarification of what they were referring to. But usually, and especially if it isn't specified, the speaker is referring to his own perspective when he says right and and left. 

However, the likeness of that forward tuft, which was the main likeness that the anthropologists found between Lovelady and Doorman, was fake. They were looking at a photographic alteration, the one thing that was done to turn Oswald into Lovelady.

The rest of what the anthropologists said was complete bull shit. They vaguely referred to Doorman's narrow jaws being more narrow like Loveladys, but it's ridiculous because of all the distortion on the right side of Doorman's face (our right). Likewise, they vaguely likened Doorman's nose and chin to Lovelady's, but it's ridiculous because his nose and chin are spot-on matches to Oswald's. Oswald was the one with the "deep chin" not Lovelady. 

So really, it turns out that every bit of the anthropologists' claims were complete, total, utter bull shit. 

And we are supposed to respect this government investigation? 

Don't you get it? The government killed Kennedy, and they have been trying, relentlessly, to cover it up. It's as simple as that.  

Govt is a 4-letter word.