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

It doesn't take a genius to realize that all the HSCA did was jerk us around. What was the point of doing a detailed anatomical comparison of Oswald and Lovelady? We knew they weren't identical twins, so there had to be differences. But what difference did it make that one was longer in this measurement or that one? It made no difference. It had no importance or significance. The only thing that mattered was: which one of them was Doorman? And that could ONLY be determined by comparing each of them to Doorman. But that was the very thing that the HSCA refused to do. 

So, I am not saying that what they did had little value. I am saying that it had absolutely no value. 

So, why did they do it? They did it for show. They did it to make a good impression (with the unthinking), to look scientific (but there was nothing scientific about what they did), and to show an earnest sincerity to get at something. They wanted to look busy, involved, and engaged. 

It didn't matter whether Oswald and Lovelady looked like each other or how much. What mattered was the extent to which each of them looked like Doorman. Who was Doorman? That was the only question, and comparing Oswald and Lovelady to each other could not answer it. This sentence tells you all you need to know about the HSCA:

"The Altgens negative was not subjected to digital image processing because the image was blurred to the resolution limitations of the camera system, and, consequently, the Photographic Evidence Panel believed that computer assisted enhancement techniques would not aid in identifying the Man in the Doorway."

What? Then they should have quit right there. Also this one:

"Due to the blurred quality of the enlargements of the spectator's image in the Altgens photograph, it was not possible either to identify or exclude positively Lovelady, or Oswald. Based on a subjective assessment of the facial features of the spectator, however, it was determined that the Man in the Doorway bears a much stronger resemblance to Lovelady than to Oswald. Thus, assuming it is either Oswald or Lovelady, and not a third party, it appears highly improbable that the spectator is Oswald and highly probable that he is Lovelady."

That is not true. An OBJECTIVE assessment of the facial features of Doorman shows that he bears a much stronger resemblance to Oswald in his facial features, EXCEPT FOR HIS FOREHEAD AND HAIRLINE AND THE SHAPE OF HIS HEAD which are a match to Young Lovelady. 

Now get this, Backes: They said that they used the image of Young Lovelady because it was closest in time to the assassination. 

"Photographs of Lovelady were furnished which varied in date from 1959 to 1977. Of most interest were those taken near the time of the assassination. (See for example, figure IV-70.)"

And here is figure IV-70:

                                                    Billy Nolan Lovelady circa 1959-63

Circa 1959-63? How can one photograph be circa 1959-63? 

And by the way, that image is left-to-right flipped. It's a mirror image, and it is what they published. And he looks very young to me there. I take him to be about 20 years old, which would make it 1957. Here he is next to other known 20 year olds; note that I unflipped his image: 

 But, even if I am wrong and it was 1959, how is 1959 closer to the assassination than Feb 1964? So, why didn't they use the FBI photos? Can't you see that their excuse is lame? 

Without taking measurements, the HSCA anthropologists did note the likeness of Doorman's forehead and hairline to Young Lovelady, but of course, they never broached the question of photographic alteration. After all, this is America, and we don't do such things here; perish the thought. And the only other thing they "subjectively" matched to Lovelady was when they said that, like Lovelady, Doorman has "a relatively long face with narrow jaws and a deep chin and a rather bulbous nasal tip."

Note that above I used the correct orientation of Young Lovelady even though they apparently did not. You can't say anything about the length of the face being a better match to Lovelady. So that's bull shit. And how can you talk about the narrowness of Doorman's jaws when his left jaw (on our right) is gouged out? So that's bull shit. The "deep chin" is a match to Lovelady? That is certainly bull shit. What is so "deep" about Lovelady's chin? And since the nose keeps growing throughout life, they really should have used the FBI photo within 3 months of the assassination. 

Doorman's nose makes a better match to Oswald because it is not as bulbous as Lovelady's. Therefore, everything they said -every last thing- was pure bull shit. 

It was just a fucking lie fest. They were lying then; they are lying now; and they have recruited a whole new generation of liars to lie for them.