Thursday, November 1, 2018

I want you to realize that the handling of the whole Doorman issue had the stench of State Lie from the beginning and throughout. It started with the Altgens photo being published, and people- from all over the world- thought they saw Oswald in the doorway. 

But, the FBI quickly issued a fiat that, no, he was Billy Lovelady. Now, they had Lovelady, and they could easily have put him in front of a sea of microphones- and cameras- for the world to see. But, they didn't.  

They, presumably, could have obtained photos of Lovelady and published them in newspapers, but they didn't. Instead, they published stories, such as the one about his kids seeing Oswald on tv and thinking he was their dad. (And note that Oswald was an inch taller and forty pounds lighter, plus he had a lot more hair.) 

Then, in February 1964, they took photos of Lovelady and sent them to the Warren Commission. They did not send them to media or inform the media. It was a secret thing. And, the Warren Commission did nothing with them. They did not publish them in the Warren Report, and they did not use them to resolve the Doorman question.

The only reason we ever found out about the 29 February FBI photo-shoot of Lovelady is because of one man: Harold Weisberg. He poured through the document pile, discovered them, and made them public. 

We know from the Mark Lane photo that was paparazzied by Mark Lane that the FBI filled in Lovelady's lost hair in the above photos. They also got rid of his Dumbo ears. 
And it explains why the Warren Commission, who had Lovelady, didn't take pictures of him.  You notice in the FBI photos that Lovelady had his shirt unbuttoned, which was undoubtedly done to mimic Doorway Man. So, he was recreating the look of Doorman. Therefore, he must have been wearing the same clothes he wore on 11/22- because it would have been pointless otherwise. But notice that the shirt was striped, and it was short-sleeved. So, it could not possibly be Doorman's shirt.  

The Warren Commission could have grabbed Lovelady, in his shirt, and put him in the doorway and photographed him there. In other words, they could have tried to duplicate the Altgens Doorman. But, they didn't. Instead, they went for lipflapping; they got a few people to flap their lips that Doorman was Lovelady. But, they couldn't get Lovelady to say it. Nowhere in his long testimony with Joseph Ball did Lovelady clarify that the Doorway Man was himself. Instead, Ball gets Lovelady to draw an arrow to himself but never tells us who Lovelady drew it too. Ball even gave Lovelady a photo which already had an arrow drawn on it, the one drawn by Buell Frazier. And that arrow of Frazier's is the only one we see on C.E. 369.  Except: if you look closely, you can see that there is a discreet black mark on the forearm of Black Hole Man standing next to Doorman, which must be the arrow drawn by Lovelady. It is a matter of default.  It is the only other mark on the photo. 

So, out of 75 employees, the Warren Commission got several to say that Doorman was Lovelady. But, these witnesses were screened ahead of time. So, if they went to someone, and he said that Doorman was Oswald, what do you think was going to happen? He wasn't going to be called to testify, and he was immediately going to be told that he is mistaken, and he had better not repeat it- if he knows what's good for him. 

So, that they were able to get a few persons to parrot the State line means nothing, less than nothing. It was just a Stalinist thing, like Joseph Stalin and his show trials, where he would get frightened people to claim they saw someone do something, which got the guy convicted and put to death. The only difference in this case is that Oswald was already dead- killed by the State in an elaborate ruse that patsified the hapless and witless Jack Ruby. 

Then, a dozen years later, when the HSCA was formed, they examined the Doorman issue again. Why? Apparently, the firestorm about it had not let up.  So, what do they do? They got Robert Groden to do a photo comparison of Doorman and Lovelady, but not Oswald. Groden NEVER put a photo of Oswald in his shirt side by side with Doorman in his shirt.

Do you understand that this much likeness of the man and his clothing between Oswald and Lovelady is IMPOSSIBLE? The idea that Oswald and Lovelady looked and dressed that much alike is preposterous.

And then there were the anthropologists. Don't liken them to the architects and engineers who tell us that the towers had to be imploded. The anthropologists, after first excusing themselves from responsibility of error due to the graininess of Doorman's image, claimed that precise measurements for comparison can't be taken, but in general, Doorman looks more like Lovelady. Then, they cited Doorman's hairline being a match to Lovelady's, but in the image of Lovelady that they published, his hairline is the mirror image of Doorman's. 

So, after 6 years, Lovelady's hair, in its length, style, cut, lay, and recession was exactly the same? Except that it was the mirror image?  The photo on the left is a flipped image, a mirror image, and they had it and used it in 1963 to give Doorman a different hairline.  And if you refuse to accept that, then you are left having to believe that a rapidly balding young man had the exact same hair in 1963 that he had in 1957.  But remember that hair is constantly changing. It is constantly falling out and being replaced. It is constantly being cut and growing back. Some of it falls out permanently. It is being subjected to shampoos, conditioners, hair creams, plus the effects of weather, temperature, humidity, and the effect of sleeping on it. The result is that hair isn't likely to look the same over 6 weeks time, never mind 6 years. 

There is a version of Lovelady's hair that is unflipped, but it's only because I unflipped it. 

That definitely is the correct orientation because it matches with future pictures that he took. Lovelady continued to lose hair, but he kept a few sparse strands on top that matched the pattern seen above. 

The point is that the stench of corruption has accompanied the State's actions in plumbing the Doorman controversy from the beginning and throughout. This is a case of prosecutorial corruption of the worst kind. They railroaded an innocent man, Lee Harvey Oswald, and this is my beef and my brief about it.  

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.