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

The return of Lance Upperpunk! He wants to spar over this issue of Lovelady's hairline, and I couldn't be more pleased because I love talking about it.

First, Upperpunk is making a stink about these two versions of the Mark Lane photo of Lovelady.

Obviously they were processed differently, with different tints. Plus, the top one has some dark renderings that almost make it look like he had a beard, but I'm sure that was just an artifact. And of the two, I actually trust the top one more because it is the one that is featured on the back cover of Forgive My Grief IV by Penn Jones.

The above is the real thing. It's the one I vouch for. And as you can see, Lovelady had very little hair on top and practically no hairline at all.

The above version is sans the yellow tint, but it looks very much the same otherwise, with very little hair in front on top: just a few strands in two little clusters. 

Here is another rendering, and still we are seeing the hair the same.

But, what about this one below where the hair seems a little longer on top and more distinct and substantial? I wonder if someone did something to it deliberately to create that effect. But, in any case, IT is the exception and not the rule, and it is the one to ignore. And, it makes no difference anyway because it is still a far cry from what we see on Doorman. The plain truth is that, even using this photo, Lovelady was too bald to be Doorman. 

As to when it was taken, it was the winter of 1964. I was told that directly by Mark Lane, who is a member of the OIC. But, you see that heavy winter coat? How many months of the year do you think one wears a coat that heavy in Dallas, Texas? It's not that many. So, if that was February 1964, it was just 3 months after the assassination- or it could have been less. 

It could have been taken on the same day as the FBI photos. Perhaps Mark Lane's photographer followed Lovelady to his appointment. 

Then, concerning the convenient match of FBI Lovelady's hairline to Doorman's, that was fabricated. It was a two-step process. They first matched Doorman's hairline to that of Young Lovelady from the 1950s- not realizing the extent to which Lovelady had gone bald. So, when they got around to photographing Lovelady on 2/29/64, they had to doctor his hairline to match the chicanery they had already done.

So, Upperpunk, don't you cite the hairline of FBI Lovelady as anything but more FBI flim-flam because that's what it was. These two photos below were taken at about the same time. They may have been taken on the same day. Now, who are you going to believe? The FBI or Mark Lane?

Someone is lying here, but you know damn well it isn't Mark Lane. 

There is no way on God's Green Earth that those two can be construed as the same hairline. Again: same man, same time, maybe even the same day.

And, why is FBI Lovelady's hair so short? Is there any evidence that Lovelady ever wore his hair in a crewcut? No. They did it that way because it's easier to fake short hair than it is long hair.


Then, there is the Roy Lewis' statement:

 “I’ve been told that some people confused Billy Lovelady with Oswald, but Lovelady was much heavier and, even though Oswald’s hair was thinning, Billy’s was about all gone up there.” Roy Lewis (Larry Snead, No More Silence: An oral history of the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy pg 84-88)

That was a spontaneous utterance. Nobody asked Roy to wax on about Lovelady's hair. He felt compelled to say it out of his own need to say it, to point to a truth that was of crucial importance that was being universally overlooked. LOVELADY WAS ALMOST BALD AT THE TIME OF THE ASSASSINATION.

Now, let's a take close look at the likeness between Young Lovelady and Doorman.

It is absolutely and positively impossible for Billy Lovelady's hair to have been EXACTLY the same in 1963 as it was in 1957. HE WAS A RAPIDLY BALDING YOUNG MAN. Furthermore, even if he wasn't a rapidly balding young man, even if he hadn't lost a single strand, there is no way his hair would look exactly the same as these two do. That's because hair is constantly growing, and the timeliness of haircuts was in this case totally random. Plus, no two haircuts are ever the same. Plus, the hair itself lies differently and behaves differently at different times as a function of its length, the humidity in the air, the way you slept on it the night before, whether you washed it the night before, what shampoo you used, etc. etc. etc. There couldn't possibly be this much correlation between Lovelady's hair in 1957 and his hair in 1963. It's just too too close. 

They transferred the "cap" of Young Lovelady's head over to Doorman, and it wasn't the first time they did such a thing. Jack White showed us how in the Backyard Photos, they moved Oswald's face to the body of another man, except not his chin. They left the other guy's chin, and it was probably Roscoe White. 

So, this was essentially the same thing except that they grabbed a smaller piece of Young Lovelady's face to move over-just the very top part of it. 

This is approximately what they did:

  I suppose I could just as well have called it his "crown" as his "cap", but I started with cap, so I'll stick with it.

And note that the forehead and hairline are the ONLY things that match between Young Lovelady and Doorman. Look at all the space that Lovelady had between his eye brows and and his eyes. You don't see that on Doorman. Compare their right ears; they are enormously different. The hairline and the shape of the top of the head is the only thing they had in common. 

Lovelady really did have a lot of space between his eye brows and his eyes. 

But, Doorman has the relatively close spacing of Oswald. 

That's the same spacing. That's the same man.

It was Oswald in the doorway; he was Doorway Man, and that is as certain as that it was Jesus Christ on the Cross.

It can't not be him. This is way beyond the threshold of reasoned speculation. It is a proven, bankable fact. 

Just today, the following letter was sent to a very important person in the case. I have done some redacting of it, but it all pertains to the above collage.

April 23, 2015

Dear XXX,

I was given your address by YYY. He encouraged me to write to you and said it would be OK.

I want to tell you that there is absolutely no doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent because he was standing in the doorway at the time of the shots. That’s him on both sides of this collage. It’s his unique shirt. It was not a standard American shirt; it lacked the stiff collar and placket of American shirts. Very likely, he brought it back with him from Russia.

It’s his t-shirt. You see the notched shape of the opening? He had the habit of tugging on his t-shirts which stretched them out and deformed them. His Marine buddy Anthony Botelho confirmed that. You’re looking at his unique, self-made, handcrafted V-neck t-shirt.

It’s his ear; his nose; his mouth; his chin.  But, you notice that I cut off the top of their heads, and that’s because they transferred the top of Billy Lovelady’s head (including his hairline) to Oswald. And, it became quite a tangled mess because they were working off a photo of Billy Lovelady from the 1950s in which he had a lot more hair. The alterers didn’t realize that Lovelady had lost a lot of hair by 1963 and was practically bald on top. So, when the FBI later took photographs of Lovelady for the Warren Commission, they had to doctor those photos as well to match what had been done to the image of Oswald in the doorway.

I also want you to know that there is an army of people who are fighting to vindicate LHO.  It’s called the Oswald Innocence Campaign, of which I am the administrator.  Our Chairman is Professor James Norwood, and we have four other professors. We have the two most renowned assassination lawyers: Mark Lane and Vincent Salandria.  We have several prominent JFK assassination authors, including Craig Roberts, Phil Nelson, and Pat Shannan.  We have Abraham Bolden, the African-American Secret Service agent who suffered so much for the sake of JFK truth.

You can visit our website at: www.oswald-innocent.com.

Of course, you are invited to become a senior member of the OIC, if you are so inclined. There is no cost or obligation.  I have to think it would make a difference; a big difference.

I won't contact you again unless I hear back from you; rest assured of that. But, I would very much appreciate hearing from you, if you are so inclined. Thank you for reading this. Sincerely, Ralph Cinque