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

Well, I hope bpete is getting all that traffic he is claiming because he put up those statements by Gerald McKnight advocating Oswald in the doorway, and the more people that read those the better.

And no, I didn't pull a bait and switch. I was just trying to show that he said it more than once- that it wasn't just one statement. He has said and written it many times over the years. He has long been a staunch supporter of Oswald in the doorway. Gerald McKnight is the intellectual and material heir of Harold Weisberg, and Harold Weisberg was a strong advocate of Oswald in the doorway. Harold even argued with Mrs. Lovelady about it on the phone in 1966.

And, bpete has no right to make the assumption that Gerald McKnight disbelieves in Altgens alteration. He didn't bring it up in that televised debate, but if you recall, he stated that he didn't have time to go into it. So, there is no reason to draw any conclusions about it.

First, let me say that if someone wants to believe in Oswald in the doorway without believing in Altgens alteration, it's fine with me. You have to understand that Oswald in the doorway is the coup d' grace. If it's Oswald in the doorway, then it's all over. If it's Oswald in the doorway, then he obviously wasn't up on the 6th floor at the time of the shots doing the shooting. So, once you get to Oswald in the doorway, you're home free. Your work is done. It's Miller time.

bpete seems to be arguing that it's OK to believe in Oswald in the doorway as long as you don't bring Altgens alteration into it.

Well, keep something in mind: Altgens alteration is just an explanation for how Oswald in the doorway got complicated. But, if someone wants to believe in Oswald in the doorway without it, they've already rounded the bases and brought the runs in. If bpete wants to reduce this to a technical argument, I suppose he can, but meanwhile we are celebrating Oswald in the doorway because that is the crucial thing; it is the game winner.

But, bpete has a habit of thinking that he can read people's minds. He thinks that because Lovelady didn't mention his "trek to the tracks" in his brief handwritten FBI statement on 11/22, that it's equivalent to him denying that he ever made the trek. And it's ridiculous. Lovelady wasn't responding to questions at the time. He was entirely using his own judgment about what warranted his narration. But, under questioning with Joseph Ball, it came out that he walked down to the tracks with Bill Shelley.

So, we don't know what Gerald McKnight thinks about Altgens alteration. But, I think it's reasonable to assume that the chances are just as good that he believes in it than that he doesn't. Think about logically: He knows that Oswald was the Man in the Doorway.  He also knows that other people claim it was Lovelady based on certain "stuff" they see. Ipso facto, the stuff they see may have been fabricated.

Actually, there are only two "stuffs" that have ever been cited to vouch for Lovelady in the doorway- photographically speaking. One is the idea that Doorman was wearing a plaid shirt like Lovelady, but that hope is now completely dashed, thanks to Robin Unger who in recent days has supplanted the Groden scan as the gold standard of doorway images with this one from the HSCA:

No plaid, no plaid, no plaid, no plaid, and hopefully, nobody is ever going to say plaid again in reference to Doorman. 

Now, the only other thing is the hairline:

   Yes, it's a good match to the Lovelady figure, but the problem is that that isn't Lovelady from 1963. It's Lovelady from the 1950s, and probably as far back as 1957 or earlier- judging by how young he looks. Lovelady was a rapidly balding young man, and there is no way he had as much hair in 1963 as he did in 1957. And we have the image of Lovelady that Mark Lane commissioned which was taken in the winter of 1964:

His hair looks nothing Doorman's and nothing like Young Lovelady's either.

So, what it means is that the one and only physical feature that matches to Lovelady- the hairline- does not match that of Lovelady from the time of the assassination, and therefore, the whole thing screams of alteration. Doorman having Lovelady's hairline from 1957 is not a talking point for Lovelady in the doorway: it is a talking point in favor of Oswald in the doorway.

I don't know what Gerald McKnight's position is about all this, but again I'll say that: he advocates for Oswald in the doorway, and that is good enough for me. That is the whole enchilada. It is the whole kit and kaboodle. The fact is that there are numerous reasons for believing it, and Professor McKnight can lean on whichever ones he wants. But, I deny the right of bpete to speak for him. Until Dr. McKnight addresses the issue of Altgens alteration publicly, it remains an unknown what he believes about it.