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

Backes, this collage was not made by me, and it is not on the OIC website. It was made by Richard Hooke a long time ago with no involvement or input from me. And it is something that Richard has since abandoned. So, why are you throwing it up at me?

Now Backes is claiming that the photo of Young Lovelady from the 1950s, which I estimate to be from 1957, was given to the HSCA in the late 1970s by Mrs. Patricia Lovelady.

That is a bold-faced lie. There is no evidence that the HSCA ever asked Lovelady or his wife for any pictures of him. What a load of crap. Backes just pulled that out his ass. There is simply no evidence that they did that. 

But, my proof that the conspirators had that 1957 picture of Young Lovelady in 1963 is based on the fact that they used it to give Doorman his hairline. 

 Do you understand, Backes, that that was NOT Lovelady's hairline in 1963? He was a rapidly balding young man, and he had lost a lot of hair by 1963. We have this image from Mark Lane from the winter of 1964:

Here they are all together:

So, the way it went down is that they started with Doorman who was Oswald and had Oswald's hairline. Then, they transferred Young Lovelady's hairline to him. Then, they altered FBI Lovelady's hairline so that it would match what they did to Doorman.  Then Mark Lane took his image of Lovelady showing what little hair he really had. 

There is really no doubt about this. Look how bald Lovelady was by 1967.

So, you think Lovelady had a progression in which his hair remained perfectly stable from 1957 until 1964, and then it fell out in droves by 1967?

So, the official story has it that Lovelady's hair was stable and solid as a rock for 7 years, from 1957 to 1964, but then it fell out in droves in the 3 years between 1964 an 1967. Don't you think it's more likely that it was gradual process? You can see in the image on the left that the fallout had already begun for young Billy. He already had a lot of recession for such a young man. Odds are great that it continued at the same pace rather than leveling off for 7 years. 

Why do you think they depicted Lovelady's hair so short above? There is no evidence that he wore it that short. What little hair he had was definitely combable in the Mark Lane photo.

The reason it looks so short in the FBI photo is because when you are faking hair in a photo, you can't add strands because it can't be done convincingly. It would look like a cartoon. You keep it short and that way it looks real. These two images were taken around the same time:

Why the difference in the hairlines, Backes? Now look at the date on the letter about Lovelady's altercation with a photographer.

It was April 1, 1964. That was the winter that Dallas got swarmed with photographers all trying to capture a picture of Lovelady. The only one that succeeded that we know of was the photographer who worked for Mark Lane. 

Thank God for Mark Lane, and thank God for Mark Lane's photographer. Give that man the Purple Heart for bravery in battle. He showed us Lovelady's true hairline. The collage below proves that Lovelady could not have been Doorway Man.

Billy Lovelady could not have been Doorman. He had too little hair. He was too stocky at the time. His ears stuck out too much. It's just not him. 

And the lying Backass is now claiming that Harold Weisberg, were he alive, would be on his side and against me. Backes: Harold Weisberg was an advocate of Oswald in the doorway. Harold Weisberg was an advocate of Oswald in the doorway. Harold Weisberg was an advocate of Oswald in the doorway. And you are a fucking ignoramus. If only Harold Weisberg could be here... if only. It's your fat ass he'd be kicking.