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

My number one collage to demonstrate Oswald innocence is this one:

But, when it comes to demonstrating that image alteration was done with the JFK assassination, I have come to think that this collage below is really unsurpassed.

And that's because it is absurd to think that Billy Lovelady would have the exact same hair after 6 years.  We all know better than that from common experience. It's the exact same length, the exact same cut, the exact same style, the exact same way it lies, the exact same hairline, and the exact same baldness pattern, and it's an unusual baldness pattern at that. 

Furthermore, the first time the image of Young Lovelady was ever shown to the public was in the HSCA Final Report in 1979, and there, they published it flipped.

That is a flipped image. It is a mirror image. It is left-to-right flipped. And, you know darn well that it wasn't an accident or an oversight. People talk about developing film the wrong way, but surely, the HSCA wasn't given undeveloped film to process. They were given a photograph. 

I realize that film is no longer used in photography, but think back to the old days. Don't you remember dropping your film off at Walgreen's or Walmart, where you'd pick the photos up a few days later and excitedly open the envelope right on the spot to see how the pictures came out? We did that for decades, right? How many times, standing there at the photo counter, did you have to say to the attendant, "Wait a second; this image got flipped. You'll have to do it over." Did that ever happen to you, even once? Did it ever happen to anyone you know? Did you ever hear about it happening to anyone at all? 

And again, the HSCA didn't even start with film that had to be developed. It was an old photo. It was developed decades before. They received a finished product. So, how did it get flipped? 

And nobody can argue about it being flipped because if you try to do that, then you have to argue that Billy Lovelady's hairline underwent a complete reversal from what it was, where it did a complete 180. 

And, if you look at later pictures of him, it's easy enough to tell that this below is the proper orientation. 

He had the forward-most tab of hair on his right side, which is our left, as you see above across the board. 

We have to conclude that that Wedding image was deliberately flipped, but by whom? It wasn't necessarily by the HSCA. It could have been done by whomever provided it to the HSCA. And of course, I don't mean the Loveladys. I would never accuse them of flipping it. But, if it came from the CIA or the FBI, I could see them doing it. 

The image of Oswald also got flipped.

That Figure IV-69 of Oswald is a flipped image of him. It is yet another mirror image. Is there anyone out there who wants to call this an accident? An innocent mistake? 

Do you notice that he looks older and more devious in the flipped version on the right? He seems to have the evil eye, doesn't he? And isn't that what you want in your mad dog/lone nut assassin? 

Anyone who tries to make excuses for this, claiming that it's all an accident, is just defending the indefensible, and they are demonstrating a stubborn and desperate willingness to say anything to support the photographic record of the JFK assassination- no matter how transparently corrupt it is. "It's all good." That's their mantra.