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

Lovelady stated in plain English to the Warren Commission that he NEVER saw Oswald again that day after they broke for lunch:
Ball: Did you EVER see Oswald again THAT DAY (after you broke for lunch)?
Lovelady: No.

And Lovelady said that he was never milling around out in front of the TSBD after the assassination, that he left immediately, before Officer Baker reached the steps, which he saw from a distance.

These movies of Lovelady are fake, every one of them. And remember: the idea that assassination movies were altered did not originate with Ralph Cinque. Half the JFK world believes that and talks about the Zapruder film having been altered. Some big names, such as Doug Horne, say that it was altered. Youtube is saturated with movies about how the Z-film was altered, such as all these:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Zapruder+film+was+altered&sm=3

Once you grant that the Z-film was altered, it's only logical to assume that other films were altered as well. Why would they stop at just one? Why wouldn't they alter every single one if it served their purpose?

And remember that some of my adversaries, such as Joseph Backes and Clark Rob, do admit that Oswald was framed and innocent. Framed and completely innocent. Well, in that case, they would certainly be willing to do anything to frame him, including alter movies. 

Let's remember how difficult it was what they were trying to do. They were trying to pin a multi-shooter ambush, a military-style triangulated attack, on one guy who wasn't even in the spot they said he was. Obviously, it's hard to do that under any circumstances, but when there's a picture of the guy standing harmlessly in the doorway clasping his hands right during the attack, obviously you have got a problem. You have got to take him out of that picture and claim that he was another man. That's where Lovelady came in. All this movie-making was just a hapless attempt to qualify Lovelady as Doorman. I say hapless because even Harold Weisberg pointed out that whether Lovelady wore a striped or checked shirt that neither was a match to Doorman, whose shirt was neither striped nor checked. The plaidness does not do Lovelady any good because there is nothing the least bit plaid about Doorman's shirt. 

And they went way overboard with two versions of the PD footage, and two versions of the post-assassination footage, one supposedly by Martin and the other supposedly by Hughes. Look how different the Lovelady figure looks. You can't explain this away with camera angle. It wasn't even that different of an angle.

The guy on the left from the Hughes film doesn't even look photographic. He looks more like a cartoon. His shirt looks nothing like the other guy's. His hair looks nothing like the other guy's. It looks more like a joke. 

Again, why would Joseph Backes and Clark Rob, who admit that Oswald was framed and innocent, defend this? It looks as phony as a $3 bill. Nobody in his right mind would defend such obvious fakery.  You can't defend it. It is screaming-out-loud fakery.