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

Joseph Backes is such an idiot.

Backes: "He thinks there was this person who was neither Oswald nor Lovelady who was called "Doorman." 

Cinque: No, I have always said that Doorman had to be Oswald or Lovelady. Who else?

Backes: So, except for the facial features of his forehead, hairline, and his entire head, it's a perfect match for....., wait for it, .... Lovelady.  

Cinque: No. I said that except for his forehead, hairline and the top of his head, Doorman is a perfect match to Oswald. I said that his eyes, nose, ear, mouth, and chin are a perfect match to Oswald. From the eyes down, he was Oswald; from the forehead up, he was Lovelady. They moved over the cap of Lovelady's head. That's it! All the rest is Oswald. 

Backes: "Actually, that is not what they said. "Photographs," meaning more than one, meaning plural, "were furnished which varied in date from 1959 to 1977. Of most interest were those taken near the time of the assassination."  Allow me to translate that for you.  It  means they looked at ALL of the photographs they were given but the ones they were most interested in were those nearer in time to the date of the assassination. They did not say that they used the image of "Young Lovelady" because it was closest in time to the assassination."

Cinque: Let's let them speak for themselves. This is directly from the HSCA Final Report:

I realize that is small print, but what it says is that: 

"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)."

So, figure IV-70 was given as an example of a photo taken near the time of the assassination. And then below that there is a link and a caption which says:

Figure IV-70- Billy Nolan Lovelady circa 1959-63. 

What it says, Backes is that Figure IV-70 seen above was Billy Nolan Lovelady circa 1959-63. Indeed, the implication is that they used the image of Young Lovelady because it was closest in time to November 1963. Of course, that was not true since the image of FBI Lovelady was from February 1964.

They never referenced the FBI photo in regard to the anthropologists. They referenced it in regard to Robert Groden's work, which was different. They were two separate things. 

In regard to the HSCA analysis, none of the comparing of Oswald to Lovelady mattered at all. It's only the part at the bottom where they tried to correlate Lovelady's features to Doorman that has any relevance:

So, after saying that Doorman's image was too "blurry" to take any measurements or make an objective comparison, they said that "subjectively" Doorman had some Lovelady traits:
1) a relatively broad high forehead
2) advanced recession of the hairline on each side
3) central recession- which Oswald did not have
4) a relatively long face with narrow jaws and a deep chin
5) and a rather bulbous tip like Lovelady

First, note that even with the qualifier "subjective" these conclusions could only be reached by comparing the photographs. So, since they did compare the photographs, why didn't they display them side by side and point to what they were seeing so that others could make the same "subjective" comparison? When something involves photography, what's the point of just announcing your conclusions without showing what they were based on so that folks can see for themselves?

So, in making those claims, the HSCA was conceding that THINGS CAN BE SEEN ON DOORMAN; HE CAN BE VISUALLY COMPARED TO OSWALD AND LOVELADY.  

That's great! And that's what I've been saying. So let's do it:

 1. Does Doorman have a broad high forehead like Lovelady? Well, it's definitely not broader. Oswald's looks broader than Oswald's. But, it may be a little higher since the greater recession on Doorman and Lovelady match and show more forehead. Obviously, the less hair you have, the more forehead that shows. So that is partially correct, however, I've said for a long time that Lovelady's cap was transferred to Doorman.   

2. Is there advanced recession of the hairline on each side of Doorman, where it matches Lovelady and not Oswald? Yes, but again, only because Lovelady's cap was moved over. The idea of photographic alteration has to be considered. It has to be considered in regard to the Zapruder film, as many people do, and it has to be considered in regard to the Altgens photo.

3. Does Doorman have central recession that Oswald did not have? Yes, but only because his hairline was altered. It is what they did to Lovelady-ify him. This is how he looked au natural:

Note that so far, they have got NOTHING except for what was artificially produced by way of photographic alteration.

4. Does Doorman have a relatively long face with narrow jaws and deep chin? As I said, his jaw is gouged out on the left side. Let's look at it blown up. Can you see how distorted the left ear is? Compare it to the right ear.

Compare the left ear to the right ear. Is there any innocent reason why his left ear should look so deformed? No, there is not. There is no innocent, photographic reason why his left ear should look so deformed. It's deformed because of what they did to it when they implanted Black Tie Man, and look at the crescent shape of his left jaw. There is no person in the history of humanity who has had a jawline like that. It is impossible. 

5) Does Doorman have a more bulbous nose like Lovelady? No, he has a more chiseled nose like Oswald. 

So, the only things the HSCA stated accurately were those that concerned the alterations that were done to the photograph to make him look like Lovelady. Everything else they said was bogus. 

And note that the HSCA anthropologists took NO measurements of Doorman. Therefore, their measurements of Oswald and Lovelady were completely for naught. It's like I said; it was all for show. 

But this criticism of the WC by the HSCA is worth noting:

But, the Warren Commission had the FBI photos of Lovelady, so why did they leave them in the Documents and not publish them? And let's be realistic: it's almost certain that the FBI had the image of Young Lovelady then too. Why think it was available in the 1970s but not the 1960s? Did they not turn it over to the WC? If  they didn't, why didn't they? 

But, the FBI definitely turned over the photos that were taken in 1964, and it appears that the WC not only did not publish them but didn't even look at them. So, why didn't they, and was that innocent?

Let's remember that according to Joseph Backes:

a) the Warren Commission was involved in telling the lie that Oswald rode the bus and cab

b) the Warren Commission fabricated large swaths of testimony for Lovelady and Shelley

c) the Warren Commission was involved in deviously undermining the testimony of Vickey Adams

d) and there are probably other things because Backes does concede that Oswald was innocent and framed. 

So, why should we give the Warren Commission the benefit of the doubt in regard to the Doorman issue? 

Backes, it is so obviously Oswald in the doorway that it is laughable, comical, and psycho for you or anyone to deny it. 

Look how the upper right quadrant of Doorman's shirt has no pattern at all, least of all a plaid pattern. Notice how Lovelady's shirt is not propped open. And that was the very first claimed image of him from after the assassination. You people are delirious to claim that Doorman was anyone but Oswald. For God's sake, THE MAN IS WEARING OSWALD'S CLOTHES, AND HE IS WEARING THEM EXACTLY HOW OSWALD WORE THEM!