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

The sexual deviant, dungeon master Lance Uppercut is back:

There are no vertical lines on Doorman's shirt, and the few horizontal lines are too irregular and thick to correspond to Lovelady's. Nor are there are any boxes, while Lovelady's shirt is a veritable checkerboard. The correlation to Lovelady's shirt is not just paltry; it is zero. 

Jesus Fucking H. Christ, you lie! You are vile!

"The detail that remains shows lines that are a match to Lovelady's shirt. Not only are there lines, but the lay of the collar is a striking match to Lovelady."

What the fuck? There are no lines at all on Doorman's shirt. The upper right quadrant is devoid of anything that can be described as a line. There are no lines, no boxes, and no plaid. And the "lay" of Lovelady's shirt above is an artificial contrivance, accomplished with an iron, that has no bearing whatsoever on how he wore the shirt on 11/22/63 when he went to work to lay flooring. And actually, he did not wear that shirt at all on 11/22/63. Plain English tells us that, as in "he stated he was wearing a red and white striped shirt and blue jeans." 

What is clearly visible is that there is no correlation between Doorman's pattern and Lovelady's, and what you have done in drawing lines on the shirt is bogus as hell. You haven't refuted any of my claims, and trust me Lance, you haven't even come close. Merely repeating the same lies over and over isn't a refutation of anything. 

Impartial observers you say? In that case, what do you say we round up some impartial observers and ask them which two match in this collage, and which one is the odd man odd?

And to make it interesting, we can wager. Of course, great care will have to be taken that you can't bring your own people in. It will have to be truly impartial, unbiased, uninvolved people. But, I trust there is a method by which such an honest jury could be assembled to our mutual satisfaction. I am publicly challenging you to do it. You're the one who mentioned impartial observers. If you are so sure that they will support you, then you should be willing to bet. I am willing. 

The contrast we do see on Doorman's shirt is due mostly if not wholly to light reflection, especially over worn, shiny areas of the shirt. It is certainly not boxes. There is not a single box on Doorman's shirt. There is not a single vertical line on Doorman's shirt. And there is not a single horizontal line which can be correlated with a specific horizontal line on Lovelady's shirt.

Oswald's shirt did have a fine, grainy pattern, but it's granted that we see more contrast on Doorman's shirt than Oswald's. But, this is an either/or situation. Either Doorman was Oswald or he was Lovelady. So, the question is: who matches better? And the answer is Oswald. Nothing remotely approaching the flashy, rectangular, geometric pattern of Lovelady can be seen on Doorman. Vague contrast is all you can assign to Doorman's shirt. Not by any stretch of the imagination can you equate it to Lovelady's checkered plaid pattern. 

As Harold Weisberg said in 1967 and beyond, "The Altgens picture has no checks." No checks! Not a single one.

Is the contrast we see on Doorman's shirt the result of any deliberate alteration? Maybe, but maybe not.  The clearest horizontal line on Doorman's shirt is on his cuff.

  
Is that white discoloration all we're seeing on Doorman? It's possible. But, I don't rule out the possibility that the greater light/dark contrast on Doorman was added. 

But regardless, it comes down to "distance between". And there is far more distance between Doorman and Lovelady than Doorman and Oswald. 

That is the bottom line. Neither Oswald's nor Lovelady's shirt pattern make a perfect match to Doorman's. But for whom is the distance greater? For whom is the divide wider? For whom are the missing pieces more numerous? And the answer is that the correlation gap between Doorman and Lovelady is much greater than between Doorman and Oswald. 

Finally, it's important to remember that the issue of the shirt pattern should not be viewed in isolation. It is just one factor, and all the factors must be factored in.

1. Which two have a slender build in contrast to a much heavier build? Oswald and Doorman have the slender builds.

2. Which two have their shirts sprawled open with the white t-shirt exposed? Oswald and Doorman have their shirts sprawled open with the white t-shirts exposed.

3. Which two show a descending, notched t-shirt? Oswald and Doorman both show a descending, notched t-shirt.

4. Which two are both swinging their left arm over to the center to clasp their right hand in front? That would be Oswald and Doorman. There are no images of Lovelady in which he does that. It was not his habit.

5. Which two show matching facial features such as ear and chin and eyes and nose? All of those things match between Oswald and Doorman. 

The point is that this isn't determined on the basis of shirt pattern alone. It's determined on the basis of everything. And when you tabulate everything, Doorman is a clear and overwhelming match to Oswald and not Lovelady. It isn't even close. 

What is pathetic here is that the shirt pattern is the only thing Lance Uppercut even tries to claim as a match to Lovelady, yet he fails miserably even at that. What about the fact that the whole layout of the loose-fitting outer shirt over the t-shirt is a clear match to Oswald? Blank out. That is the largest single element of the image, yet he ignores it. 

And that's why I say that it is so over-the-top Oswald in the doorway that those who dispute it are a laughing stock. They're from the Bizarro World. We'll let Dr. Gerald McKnight have the last word.

"The evidence is that Oswald was in front of the building. There were people who saw him in front of the building. I am satisfied in my own mind from Secret Service evidence and other evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was the Man in the Doorway." Professor Gerald McKnight

---