I have decided that for every attack that is rendered, I am not only going to reply here, but I am going to add something to the OIC website to bolster the issue. For instance, in regard to the claim that the vee of Doorman's t-shirt is an optical illusion, that it's actually a t-shirt like this:

that happens to appear like this due to chin shadow

I added the following to my discussion of it on the OIC website:

The shadow claim for the vee is completely bogus, and all you have to do to know it is look at shadows under chins. They are never perfectly v-shaped and symmetrical and balanced and centered as we see on Doorman. They are usually awkward and asymmetrical and with no distinct shape at all. I have been looking at such shadows, literally, for years, and I have never seen one that matched the vee we see on Doorman or even came close to it. It's not shadow; it's the shape of his t-shirt; Oswald's t-shirt. 

So, we are going to proceed in that manner, and the result will be that the OIC website will have more content, more elaboration, more explanation, and more persuasive zing. Unwittingly, the pinks and the punks will be serving the cause of Oswald innocence and JFK truth.  

The dearth of chin shadows that look like this below is so great:

that even if, somehow, the bloodied bastards succeeded at finding one, it still wouldn't prove that this is one. And that's because the dearth is so great, it's like winning the lottery. But, it would be just like these bastards to find one that "kinda, sorta" looks like this (although I doubt it would be anywhere near as good as this, that is, as clean, as sharp, as well-centered, as well-balanced, as deep, etc.) and brandish it as absolute proof that this is chin shadow. The above image is the HSCA image of Doorman, and I did nothing to it. I think it came from Robin Unger. But, I want you to notice that the black area directly above the vee is the darkest, blackest spot in the whole image. So, we would have to believe that mere shadow didn't just cover something with shadow- it completely obliterated all visibility. WE WOULD HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT SOMEWHERE IN THAT BLACKNESS, THERE IS A JUNCTION OF TAN SKIN AND WHITE T-SHIRT, BUT WE CAN'T SEE IT, AND THE BLACKEST PART IS WHERE THE WHITE T-SHIRT IS.  That's what we would have to believe, that this is white t-shirt:

And notice that the guy next to Doorman isn't casting any chin shadow at all. Look how light his neck is. But, as I have told you a thousand times, he wasn't there; they put him into the picture to hide the unusual construction of Oswald's shirt. 

You see the large and perfectly flat collar. then there is a notch beneath it. Then beneath the notch there is a button loop that juts out. And below that is a lapel that gives the shirt the look of a jacket. The shirt could do that because it was made of unusually soft material. American shirts have hard, stiff collars, and there is also a hard, stiff placket running down the center of the shirt which prevents it from folding over like this. 

The shirt on the left has the hard, stiff collar and placket, while the shirt on the right is made of soft material throughout, enabling it to fold over as we see. They have been lying to us about Oswald's shirt since Day 1, and they have NEVER showed it to us. Here's the first shirt they showed us.

That is clearly NOT Oswald's shirt, yet that image is what the Warren Commission showed witnesses, asking them to confirm if it's the shirt they saw on Oswald. 

This is what the National Archives showed on tour:

That shirt has only one button at the bottom instead of two. And presumably, the button loop is secured over the button below the right collar, but why can't we see it?

Shouldn't we be getting a glimpse of that button loop and button? The right collar is raised, so we should see it. And what is holding that shirt together? You see where the lone button is, right? So, the button above it should be directly above it, right? And you see where the corresponding button hole is, right? And it's farther to the right, isn't it? And there is no button emerging from it, right? So, what is keeping the edges of that shirt adhered together? How can that shirt be this shirt?

It's the blood. It's the blood that gets to me. The blood shed on that day and two days later, and the blood that is flung and strewn every time these bloodied bastards open their mouths to defend this crap. Do you understand that the United States went the way of Satan on November 22, 1963, and it has been going the way of Satan ever since?  The problem is that this is a nightmare- and the nightmare isn't over; it's still going one. The way they killed John Kennedy; the way they killed Lee Oswald; the way they killed Muammar Gaddafi. The way they killed nearly 500,00 Iraqis. This is from the Huffington Post and reported last year:

Iraq Death Toll Reaches 500,000 Since Start Of U.S.-Led Invasion, New Study Says

.

Nearly half a million people have died from war-related causes in Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003, according to an academic study published in the United States on Tuesday.

That toll is far higher than the nearly 115,000 violent civilian deaths reported by the British-based group Iraq Body Count, which bases its tally on media reports, hospital and morgue records, and official and non-governmental accounts.

The latest estimate by university researchers in the United States, Canada and Baghdad in cooperation with the Iraqi Ministry of Health covers not only violent deaths but other avoidable deaths linked to the invasion, insurgencies and subsequent social breakdown.

It also differs from some previous counts by spanning a longer period of time and by using randomized surveys of households across Iraq to project a nationwide death toll from 2003 to mid 2011.

Violence caused most of the deaths, but about a third were indirectly linked to the war, and these deaths have been left out of previous counts, said lead author Amy Hagopian, a public health researcher at the University of Washington.

Those included situations when a pregnant woman encountered difficult labor but could not leave the house due to fighting, or when a person drank contaminated water, or when a patient could not get treated at a hospital because staff was overwhelmed with war casualties.

“These are all indirect deaths, and they are significant,” Hagopian told AFP.

The aim of the study was to provide a truer picture of the suffering caused by war, and hopefully to make governments think twice about the harm that would come from an invasion, she said.

Yet, this man, who ordered it and is responsible for every death, lives and breathes a free man living on a lavish government pension provided by us: 

There he is, enjoying a football game, when he should be in prison. Look how he has his shirt embroidered with his initials. How many men do that? And that looks like a nice shirt too. No rags for him.

It all went to Hell on November 22, 1963. And I don't mean because a lone nut shot the President. That would not have sent everything to Hell. I mean because the reality of what happened on that day is a thousand- make it a million- times worse than that. And it is the reality we still live in. 

If one was serious about determining whether this is a vee-shaped chin shadow obscuring a round t-shirt, he wouldn't just look for a picture; he would take a camera out and try to reproduce it. 

And that's because when you take a camera out, you can control all the conditions: the lighting, the angle, etc. It means you can determine whether it is possible AT ALL to produce such an effect. And then, if you succeed at reproducing it, then you can move the experiment to Dealey Plaza on November 22, or thereabouts, and determine if those conditions are met there and then. But, it makes sense to find out if you can make it happen at all when you have complete experimental control. 

And you would think that curiosity alone would make them do it.
After all, they are making a claim. They are claiming to know something, to explain something, a physical and optical phenomenon. So, why not try to experimentally test it?  

But, they are NOT curious. They're not the least bit curious. They don't give a shit about it. What they care about is defending bloodied killers and upholding the official story. So, to them, this shadow claim is just a useful ploy. It's a card to play.

I, on the other hand, went to Dealey Plaza- twice- and took many shots, more than I have ever shown, to test the chin shadow hypothesis. It failed. I didn't, but it did. 

The doorway is still there, and lower Elm Street is still there. And for this, you don't even need Tri-X film because we're talking about the casting of a shadow, which is not affected by film. So, they could go there  in late November of this year and take pictures. But, they won't. There's no chance that they will. And it's because they know they are never going to get the result that they want. But, it doesn't bother them. You've got to remember that they don't care. They don't care about the truth. They don't care about Kennedy.  I suspect they have no more feeling for Kennedy than they do for Oswald, which is none. They care only about dispelling challenges to the official story either because they are State zealots, or because they are being paid, or both. 

VERY enlightening message here from John Avery Emison:

John Emison:

I speculate in my book that the the "ice dart" pistol developed by CIA could have been used to kill Judge W. Preston Battle, Jr. who was just about to grant James Earl Ray's motion to withdraw his plea and stand trial. Battle's death was assumed heart attack 3 weeks after Ray's guilty plea hearing. NO autopsy. Seven years later Judge William Miller of the US Sixth Circuit likewise died of a heart attack. Both had Ray motions pending before their court at the time of death. When you go back and look at the Nix film, you don't see the debris spray that is visible on Zapruder. And it appears that the limo perceptibly slowed, just as Jackie Kennedy and others testified.


Ralph Cinque:

John, there are numerous suspicious heart attacks in the JFK case. Thank you for making me aware of ones in the MLK case. But, in JFK, we have Billy Lovelady who died suddenly of a heart attack in January 1979 right when the HSCA Final Report was coming out. There was huge turmoil about him, where finally, a lead attorney for the HSCA, Ken Brooten, after going to Colorado to talk to Lovelady, resigned from the HSCA so that he could represent Lovelady. And he got Lovelady excused from going to Washington and being forced to testify before the committee. Just think: in the raging controversy over who was the Man in the Doorway, there were only two possibilities, Oswald and Lovelady, and they did not make Lovelady go to Washington to testify under oath. So, he dies of a heart attack, supposedly, at the age of 41. David Sanchez Morales, the CIA hitman, died before he could testify. Richard Case Nagel, a non-smoker and a health nut, died of a heart attack one day before receiving a letter from the ARRB requesting information. That was in 1995. I'm glad you consider the ice bullet hypothesis plausible because so do I. The fact is that JFK was stupefied after he was shot, and the trauma alone does not account for it.

Here's a shadow that is quite centered, but it's more bell-shaped than vee-shaped, and it doesn't go down nearly far enough to cover his t-shirt.

It's another failure, but it's one the idiots would probably scream, "there; you see?" It's nothing like this:

This woman has got some shadow, and it's kinda veeish, but the problem is, it's not centered. The vee is way off to her right. 

The idea that on November 22, 1963, a perfect v-shaped chin shadow got laid is truly preposterous. It's the song of the bloodied.

Here's a woman on the left who definitely has shadow. But, it's from her chin, her hair, and more.

The claim that Doorman's vee is a shadow obscuring the round collar on his t-shirt is something I will not allow. It is not going to happen on my watch. 

Most of the time, there are no chin shadows at all. It's not as though it's a common occurrence.

So, chin shadows are not that common. It takes a certain angle of direct sunlight to happen at all. And perfectly centered vee-shaped chin shadows are non-existent. At least, we have yet to see an image of one.

And yet, the bloodied punk has the nerve to glibly claim that this is a chin shadow:

No chin shadows here:

It's hard enough to find chin shadows, but to find perfectly centered vee-shaped ones?

And yet, we are supposed to accept that that is what is happening here?

It comes down to blood; the blood of John Kennedy and Lee Oswald in which he is soaked. Blood. Blood. Blood. 

John Avery Emison:

Dr. Cinque, i have read your 2011 article on Lew Rockwell (and I have been published there as well). Do I understand correctly that you maintain that JFK's neck wound was not made by a high-powered rifle? Is that correct? I would love to correspond with you because I am the middle of writing my 3rd assassination-related book, this one about the strange similarities between the JFK murder and the MLK murder. Here is my email. Thank you for your time.

Ralph Cinque:

I think it's best to refer to two wounds: the "throat" wound and the "back wound". Kennedy was hit in the back at the level of T3, just to the right of the spinous process. What happened to that bullet, we don't know. The autopsists were not allowed to open it up and track it. It certainly did not continue to JFK's throat and emerge from there because it entered his back at T3 at a sharply downward angle, and it was never deflected. So, it couldn't possibly travel up to his throat; it could only continue in the same direction that it was going. So, these were definitely two separate shots, and the Single Bullet Theory is complete utter nonsense. But, what happened to the back bullet? It wasn't in Kennedy's back because x-rays were taken, and it wasn't shown. And it certainly didn't "work its way out". What, through 3 layers of clothing? It would have gotten tangled in the clothing, right? So, was it dug out at the "pre-autopsy" as per David Lifton? Or was it an ice bullet that just melted inside him? I don't assert the latter, but I certainly don't dismiss it. You can read a discussion of it here.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/15516-jfk-hit-with-paralysising-ice-bullet/

Regarding the bullet that entered his throat from the front, it could not have been from a very high-powered rifle because it apparently didn't go very far. It initially obstructed his breathing, and JFK had to struggle to "cough it up", to dislodge it from wherever it was that was blocking his breathing. I like the work that Gil Jesus has done on this, and his videos are on Youtube.

JFK, apparently, succeeded at moving the bullet so that he could breathe because he is not struggling to breathe throughout. He seemed to get over that. But, what happens to him after that is something that few have talked about, and that is, his mental disorientation. He really seems out of it. He certainly doesn't seem like himself. And there is no reason to think that the physical trauma could have affected his mind like that. So, getting back to the proposed ice bullet, is it possible that it contained some kind of sedative that affected his mind very quickly? Or, as some have proposed, was it a "paralyzing agent" that stiffened him? Because he seems awfully stiff. Mentally, JFK seems like a zombie. He doesn't have the wherewithal to get down, or to direct his wife to get down. He is out of it, mentally, and I am very inclined to think that it was from something that was done to him. So, EVEN THOUGH I DON'T SWEAR BY IT, THE IDEA THAT JFK WAS HIT IN THE BACK WITH AN ICE BULLET OR OTHER BULLET THAT DELIVERED A NARCOTIZING/PARALYZING AGENT IS MY FAVORITE AND NUMBER ONE THEORY. No other theory better explains his mental impairment and muscular spasticity, which are so apparent in the Zapruder film.

Continuing down the punk concourse, it's very clear to me that only the small handful of followers he has could be impressed with his blather. Take the issue of the t-shirt. Glibly, he says that the reason Doorman's t-shirt looks vee is because of shadow.

The Punk claims that what we're seeing is an optical illusion, that shadow is completely obscuring part of the t-shirt, that what we're really looking at is:

He's claiming that all that white is there, but we just can't see it because it's being completely obscured by shadow.

What's his evidence for this? Did he photographically demonstrate it by reproducing it? Did he provide other examples of it in which we see the same photographic phenomenon? No. He just said: 

If you do a little research on the subject, you'll find that most people see Billy Lovelady standing in the doorway with a shadow being cast over the area below his chin. 

So, that's it. He thinks that he and his friends saying it constitutes evidence. This is me standing in the doorway on November 17, 2012 trying to reproduce that alleged chin shadow.

As you can see, my round t-shirt opening hasn't be converted into vee by chin shadow. But, the situation is much worse than that for the other side: Not only can't it be demonstrated here- it can't be demonstrated anywhere. They can't produce one image of a person standing somewhere, anywhere, and laying down the kind of perfectly centered and pointed chin shadow that makes this:

look like this:

If they could do it somewhere, they would still have to prove that the lighting conditions were right to do it in the doorway on November 21. But, they can't even do it anywhere. And not only can't they do it anywhere, they can't even find an image of it happening spontaneously- and that's in the entire world of photography. Here's a toddler standing in the direct sun. Is he forming a vee shadow?

OK, so that one doesn't have it. Then find one that does. Wouldn't that be better than just flapping your lips? And even if you do, you'd still have a long way to go to establish that it happened in the Altgens photo. But, it's a first step; a start. But, they haven't even done that. No, they just lip-flap it.

Then, the Punk implies that Oswald's t-shirt got stretched during the scuffle he was in at the time of his arrest, that it got stretched in the fight.

First, there is no evidence that cops pulled on Oswald's t-shirt when subduing him. And, there is no reason to think they would have. They would have grabbed his arms; maybe grabbed his head. But, pull on his t-shirt? What for? Explain the dynamics of it in the context of the fight. But second, fabric doesn't stretch suddenly; it tears suddenly. It stretches gradually from forces that are less than that of tearing. 

The fact is that the vee-shaped t-shirt on Doorman is compelling evidence- to an intelligent person- that he is Oswald.

Then, we get to the managing of the photographic record on 11/22, in which the Punk ridicules the idea that there was any such effort. Yet, it is undeniable fact that every single person with a still or movie camera had his film confiscated by someone in authority. In Mary Moorman's case, it was Jim Featherstone who hustled her to the Sheriff's station to turn it over to authorities, which she did, but it amounts to the same thing. There isn't one spectator with a camera who just went home with his or her film- except for Babushka Lady, and she worked for the plotters. Officially, she disappeared afterwards and NEVER came forward despite many public requests that she do so. 

And then there are the Backyard photos, which are obvious forgeries. Some of the most cutting observations about them were made by our people, such as Amy Joyce, who noticed that Oswald's ring is worn on opposite hands in the pictures. So, we would have to believe that while Marina was snapping away, Lee said, "Wait a second, Honey: I need to move my ring to the other hand." 

I'm not going to start analyzing them here, but the point is that they were manipulating photos BEFORE the assassination. So, if they were doing it BEFORE the assassination, you know damn well that they were doing it afterwards.

And the claim that there was no time to alter the Altgens photo because it was wired out right away has been disproven. You can read about it on the OIC Wrap page:

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

If the Altgens photo really went out to the world at 1:03, then surely it went out to the Dallas Morning News, which was an AP paper. It's where Altgens went. It's where the Altgens photo was developed. So, surely the Friday morning edition of the DMN would have it, right? It doesn't. Nor does the Friday or Saturday edition of the Dallas Times Herald, also an AP paper. And what about CBS? They showed it on national television at 6:30 PM Eastern, which was 5:30 PM Central; therefore, 5 hours after it was taken. But, if they had it sooner, why wouldn't they have shown it sooner? If they had it 1:30, why wait until 5:30 to show it? So, that Walter Cronkite could show it? But, Walter Cronkite was available and reporting all afternoon; so, he could have reported it earlier. Do you think they just sat on it to show it on the Evening News? But, they could easily have shown it earlier, and then shown it again on the Evening News for those that missed it. 

The fact is that most newspapers did not publish the Altgens photo until Saturday, and that would not be true if it was given to the world at 1:03. And concerning the view exceptions with a Friday publishing date, there are suspicions, such as the Benton Harbor New Palladium, a town of 10,000 in Michigan, supposedly coming out with a lavish, all-JFK, extra edition on Friday evening- which is something that even the big city newspapers didn't do. There is nothing else like it. So, was it an elaborate scheme to falsify a Friday showing of the Altgens photo? That paper went out of business in the 1970s. 

But, as Jim Fetzer says, "the finding of photographic alterations proves that there was sufficient time to make them." So, ultimately, making claims about the timeline is futile and a waste of time. You have to address the alterations and account for them.   

Now, look at this stupidity:

Now I'm sure you're asking yourself....hey wait a minute. If there was an individual in the Altgens 6 photo that was actually Oswald...and the mysterious "they" wanted us to think it was Billy Lovelady, and the two looked nothing alike, and yet the identification of Oswald is based mainly on his clothing, why would they move some of Billy Lovelady's facial features to Oswald with the result being that people would still see that it was Oswald in the photo and not Billy Lovelady? Better yet, if they were moving Lovelady's facial features over onto Oswald, where was Billy Lovelady in the photo if he were not standing right where he testified he was standing and others identified him in the photo? More importantly, if they could move this or that, why in the hell didn't they just get rid of the photo? They were managing the photographic record, weren't they?

There is no conundrum here at all. First, besides altering the top of Oswald's head, they also tried to obscure his distinctive clothing. They did realize that his clothing gave away his identity. The distinctive lay of his shirt on the left left, with the collar, the notch, the button loop and the lapel would have given it away in an instant, so they crammed the image of "Black Tie Man" in next to him to hide it

There was no figure standing that close to Doorman, and it is impossible for anyone to stand that close to anyone. It's unreproducible. You can't have an overlap like that- not in real life and not in a photo. Doorman's left shoulder is cut off while BT Man's right shoulder is also obscured. They're both covering up each other? That's impossible. Look: one had to be in front of the other, and whichever one that was, could have been covering up the other one. But, you can't have it both ways with each obscuring the other. Here's me and a paid stand-in:

So, my left shoulder is intact, but I am covering up part of his right arm, and that's because I was standing in front of him. I was between him and the camera. But, this is impossible:

And again, I'll say that the pinks and the punks have every opportunity to get out cameras and duplicate what we see here. But, they don't do it. They just lip-flap. 

And then likewise, they sought to cover up the bottom of Oswald's shirt which was tattered and torn. 

What if that had shown in the doorway? Obviously, it would have been all over. So, they put the profile image of the black man in there to hide it.

That image was derived from a frame taken by Phil Willis (also confiscated, like the others) that was taken about 3 hours later. At the time of the shooting, the black man, whose name was Carl Jones, was facing west, as you see in the Wiegman film.

So, that is Oswald, with his angular face, standing in the center, and that is Carl Jones standing below leaning against the west column. And the time here is very close to the Altgens photo, probably within a second. Carl Jones is not turned east, and there is no reason why he would have been. He is looking in the direction of the Kennedys- as you would expect. And there is no man in a thin black tie breathing down Oswald's neck. That is the reality there. That is Oswald standing in the doorway. He was in the center of the doorway (half a step right of center, actually) and the appearance of him being next to the white column in the Altgens photo is due to the parallax effect- Altgens angle. 

So, the fact is that they worked on Oswald, and they worked on his clothing, trying to transform him into Billy Lovelady. And this occurred in the hours following the assassination. OIC Chairman Larry Rivera thinks it's likely that the work was done at Jaggars/Chiles/Stovall- the CIA/military connected photo lab in downtown Dallas where Oswald used to work. 

There is nothing stopping anyone today, in 2018, from going to Dealey Plaza and photographing someone standing the doorway wearing a shirt like this one.

Of course, within reason, they would have to approximate Altgens shooting conditions, shooting from the same location, using the same Tri-X film, etc. as I did. But, they have the means and opportunity to demonstrate that the above shirt could come out like this in a photograph:

So, why don't they do it? Why, instead, do they have punks lip-flap? It's because they know that if they did it that it would prove the opposite: that Doorman's shirt could not possibly be that shirt. We're not talking about going to the moon here. We're talking about going to Dallas and taking a picture that no one would stop or try to interfere with. So, the next time some lip-flapper starts flapping at you about this, give him the proper response: "Go to Dallas and take a picture; and until then, shut the pluck up." 

The issue of Oswald being in the doorway is one that is so completely settled, at this point in time, that it's amazing that anyone would challenge it or want to discuss it. And, the arguments against it are just plain stupid. For instance:

 Trouble is, no one, including Harold Weisberg could ever find any evidence, or witness statements that placed Oswald in the doorway of the TSBD when Kennedy was shot. 



That is moronic because it was like the Gestapo. Word spread very quickly that Oswald was up on the 6th floor, and if you thought you saw Oswald where you shouldn't have and couldn't have, you didn't, and you better not say it.  

Just look what happened to Carolyn Arnold. On November 25, she told an FBI agent that she believed she saw Oswald "between the double doors" (meaning: at the doorway) shortly before the shooting. They got her to retract it the following March- to where she didn't see Oswald at all- and sign it. But, you know this 19 year old girl wasn't lying to the FBI on November 25.

And it goes to show that they realized:  THAT EVEN ONE OBSERVER OF OSWALD IN THE DOORWAY WOULD HAVE EVISCERATED THE ENTIRE WARREN REPORT. And, they were so concerned about it that they didn't let Carolyn Arnold testify to the Warren Commission. You realize that the FBI was essentially the filter that pre-interviewed almost everyone who testified to the WC. But, they wouldn't let the Warren Commission speak to Carolyn Arnold. 

So, she was one witness, but Oswald, himself, was another. He said he was "out with Bill Shelley in front", and he couldn't have known that Shelley was there unless he saw him, meaning, unless he was there himself. So, it's very strong testimony, and it makes the discovery of the Fritz Notes one of the most important things to happen in the JFK investigation. 

But, you have to realize the extent of the intimidation. Look at what they did to Joe Molina, who was in the doorway, storming his house that night at midnight, with guns drawn, accusing him of being Oswald's accomplice, etc. What provoked that? Had Molina done some grumbling about seeing Oswald when he shouldn't have? Molina ended up losing his job, his income, and his good name. It took him years to recover it. 

The point is that the absence of overt witnesses to seeing Oswald in the doorway MEANS NOTHING. Again: this was the fucking Gestapo, bearing down. 

And then, the bloodied punk writing this crap put up this image:

And he wrote this:

Notice the lack of hair in the center of his head versus Oswald's full hair. Notice also the indented right temple above the jutting jaw of Lovelady in the middle photo and how it compares to Lovelady in Altgens. Also notice how Lovelady's shirt in Altgens shows the plaid pattern of the shirt he wore that day. 

I have been saying for a very long time that they moved over the top of Lovelady's head to Doorman to "Lovelady-ify" him, although they didn't use that image in the center, which was taken by Mark Lane. Look at it:

The ears alone tell you that it can't possibly be Lovelady on the right. Lovelady had protruding ears. In Medicine, they are referred to as "prominent ears." Doorman didn't have them. Doorman's ears are a spot-on match to Oswald's.

The size, the shape, the pitch, the angle- it's all exactly the same. And remember: the comparison is to this:

And look how in the image he used, the ears got cut off.

How convenient. This is the sight of blood: a hired killed for the US government spewing the blood of John Kennedy and Lee Oswald. 

And then, he refers to the so-called "plaid" shirt on Doorman, supposedly a match to Lovelady's. First: Lovelady didn't wear a plaid shirt; he wore a short-sleeved one with vertical stripes.

We can't see the vertical stripes too well there, however, it is a highly compromised and distorted image. But, there's no doubt that that's Lovelady. He's right where Lovelady said he was shortly after the shooting, and the chance that there were two other guys in that location who just happened to look like and dress like Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady is preposterous.

And notice that the naked arm and short sleeve on Lovelady. 

But regardless, it's clear that Doorman's shirt was NOT plaid.

That is not plaid. Plaid refers to horizontal and vertical lines crossing and forming boxes. There isn't a single box on that shirt. You couldn't circle one. The idea that it is the same shirt as this shirt is preposterous. 

Notice that on this posing shirt (it was one Lovelady posed in years later) that you could play checkers on it, and the checkered pattern covers everything, including the collar. Now, look at the left upper quadrant of Doorman's shirt, which is devoid of any contrast at all.

 Compare that to this:

What I like about this whole process is that it gets me to write. This article wouldn't exist without the provocation. And the plain truth is that the bloodied bastard is just too stupid to realize that his best move is no move; to just shut the fuck up and not provoke me. He can't possibly win. There is no challenge he can throw at me that I can't answer. It isn't even debatable that it's Oswald in the doorway. It's the same man and the same clothes. The clothes are a perfect match, the lay and arrangement and contour of the shirt over the t-shirt.  To claim that Oswald and Lovelady were both decked out like this, you might say frumped like this, is ridiculous. It is patently absurd. This screams at you that Doorman was Oswald because he is wearing Oswald's clothes, and he still has Oswald's ear and other features despite the tampering that they did. The top of the head is the only thing that's different here- and it's they're handiwork, their Nazi photo manipulation.   

I'm always going to have the last word. I am always going to be able to trounce their lies. After all these years, there isn't one thing on the OIC website that I have ever had to take down because of this punk or anyone like him.   

Truth is rising. More people today are aware of Oswald in the doorway than ever before, and the number shall keep growing. This was me talking about it on Infowars. 

https://www.infowars.com/expert-reveals-tampering-in-jfk-assassination-photos/

My original Visible Proof video now has over 145,000 views on Youtube. Truth is rising, and punks can't stop it.