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

This collage is making a really big hit on Facebook, and I see now  that it is the most definitive one because it includes an image of Lovelady, and it is the one and only image of him that we can be sure is uncorrupted, since it came from Mark Lane. People look at this collage, and they see the very same stare on Oswald and Doorman. They see the same pursed lips. They see the same long neck. The same eyes; the same nose; the same lips; the same clothes; the same slender build. If you can't see that that's the same guy wearing the same clothes, then something is wrong- with you.  Every last thing matches between them except for one thing: the hairlines. And don't try to tell me that the shirt patterns don't match because what you are seeing on Doorman is NOT a shirt pattern. That is light reflection, plus haze and distortion from the extreme photographic enlargement that it is. But, Oswald's shirt reflected the light in the sun, as you can see on the right:

  
So, on the right, you see some light reflection on Oswald's shirt, and it gives it a varied and mottled look, and that is essentially what we are seeing on the left, along with some photographic distortion. And they probably added to the photographic noise on the left just for good measure: to mislead. But regardless, it is not a plaid pattern, and it is not a shirt pattern at all.

But, everything matches between Oswald and Doorman, with the exception of the hairlines.

But, look at those hairlines. They don't match at all. And not only do the hairlines not match, but the whole shape of the top of the head is different, with Oswald's being broad and pitched and Doorman's being oval. Those guys are the same from the eyes down, but very different from the forehead up. So what gives?

Well first, I have to ask you if you are an Oswald defender because if you are, you need to think about the fact that Oswald denied that it's him in the Backyard photo. 

Now remember: Oswald was being accused of shooting and killing the President of the United States and a police officer.  And he was innocent, and you know that. So, he was NOT going to lie about a photo. 

I hear people say that the photo is incriminating. It is NOT incriminating. It's not a crime to pose for a photo, with or without a rifle. And if that was him in the photo, and it was his rifle, all he had to say was:

"Yes, that's me, and it's my rifle, but I didn't shoot anybody. It was stored somewhere, and not in my possession. Someone must have stolen it, used it to commit those crimes in order to frame me. I didn't shoot anybody." 

That's what I would have said. Isn't it what you would have said? You wouldn't lie to the police about such a thing, would you? And neither would Oswald. So, give him credit for not being an idiot. 

So, if he said that that's not him, and it's not his rifle, then we have to believe him. We have no reason not to. 

But, if that's not him, (and it isn't) then they put his face into the photo. AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT OSWALD SAID. He even told police that if they took him to a photo lab, he could show them how it was done. So, why don't you believe him? I'm talking to you, James Norwood. You profess to be an Oswald defender, so why don't you believe him? And anyone who believes him has to agree with him that that photo was altered. 

But, the late great Jack White pointed out numerous times that it's not Oswald's chin in the Backyard photos. 

That, on the right, is an anvil-like chin. You could turn that guy upside down and reshape metal on that thing. Just kidding, of course. But, it is a very wide, massive chin that Oswald did not have. So, the original man, the one who actually posed, must have had it, and they left it there. They replaced the face but started above the chin. 

And that was done BEFORE the assassination. They showed that picture to Oswald on Saturday, November 23, and they may have produced it long before that. So, if they were prepared and equipped to alter photos BEFORE the assassination, they surely were prepared and equipped to alter photos AFTER the assassination. 

So, getting back to Oswald and Doorman, if Doorman has a different hairline than Oswald (and he does) where did it come from? It came from here:

On the left is Billy Nolan Lovelady, circa 1957. This image never surfaced at the time of the JFK assassination or in the investigation that followed. It didn't surface until the HSCA in the 1970s. It wasn't made public until 1979. And when it was made public by the HSCA, they attributed the year of 1959 to it, but without any substantiation. I reject that. I think 1957 is much more realistic. Maybe 1956. Because: Lovelady was born in 1937, and he can't be more than 19 or 20 in that picture. If someone told  you that guy is in his late teens, would you argue? 

Some people have  tried to say that it's Lovelady's wedding photo, but that is ridiculous because he didn't get married until 1961, and that was just 2 years before the assassination. You can see the huge age difference. 

But regardless, the hairlines of Young Lovelady and Doorman don't just match; they are duplicate.

But, we are talking about hair, a constantly fluctuating tissue. It is constantly growing; also constantly falling out. Intermittently, it is being cut, and never the same way twice. It is constantly being affected by weather and humidity; by products used on it such as shampoos and conditioners; by diet; by sun and wind; by sleeping on it; and by fluctuations in health.  But, in Lovelady's case, we know that he was a RAPIDLY BALDING  YOUNG MAN. So, how could he have the exact same hair in 1963 that he had in 1957  down to the length, the lay, the style, the cut, and the extent of recession? It's impossible. Those hairlines are exactly the same because they are the same hairline. Young Lovelady's hairline was moved over to Doorman on the afternoon of November 22, 1963. 

So, they did the same thing to Doorman that they did with the Backyard photo, except less. In the Backyard photo, they grabbed the whole head minus the chin, while with Doorman, they moved over just the "crown." Same process; smaller piece. 

So this, on the left, is what the Altgens Doorman must have looked like originally, for the shape of his head. 

So, does the original still exist? No. They weren't going to keep something that they would have to guard day and night, 24/7/365 and then for millennia. They just destroyed it. 

And that, in a nutshell, is what happened. The Lovelady/Doorman Ruse is undoubtedly one of the most extensive photographic frauds in the history of Man. But, the jig, as they say, is up. There is nothing speculative about any of this. There is no alternative to any of it. Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in the TSBD doorway during the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and he was photographed by James Altgens. I would bet my life on it, and I have already risked my life on it.