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

To the person who threw a hissy fit over a clerical error about the color of my truck, you're just being "hysterical" and hence, you're not thinking straight. 

In his WC testimony, Lovelady never said anything about the shirt he was wearing, and he never said anything about being Doorman. He wasn't even asked. He was only asked to draw an arrow to himself in the picture, which he did. And he drew this:

He drew his arrow to another figure: Black Hole Man.

So, Lovelady's WC testimony does NOT support him being Doorman NOR him wearing a plaid shirt.

And as far as his statements to others go, we only know what others have said. The FBI repeatedly said that he identified the Doorway Man as himself. But, they never sat him down in front of a sea of cameras and microphones so that he could declare it to reporters, researchers, and the world at large. If they had, at least then we would know that it was really him saying it. Otherwise, there's this thing that people do called lying. And when it comes to politicians and government officials, they do lots and lots of lying. 

Now, you may be one of those people who automatically believes government officials. I'm more the cynical type, myself. In fact, I am so cynical that the very fact that they took extreme measures to shield Lovelady from cameras and microphones and inquiring minds tells me that their pronouncements about what he said cannot be trusted at all and are probably bull shit.

Furthermore, the FBI had repeatedly said that Lovelady ID'd Doorman as himself BEFORE he testified to Joseph Ball and drew the arrow to another figure. So, that makes it certain that they were lying, since as late as April 1964 he was denying it. And the fact that they wouldn't let him speak to us or the press only makes it double-sure. 

So, the bottom line is that those FBI pronouncements about Lovelady claiming to be Doorman don't count. They're not worth shit. 

The shirt that I wore at the Reenactment to represent Lovelady's actually had tiny boxes. But, they did manifest. This was with Tri-X film. 

   
Here is how it came out in another one:

Above we're not seeing all the boxes, but we are getting the message about the rectangularity of the pattern, which certainly does not exist on the left. And again, it was taken with Tri-X film.

Is this the point in the story where you start disputing again whether I used Tri-X film?

Now, in your desperation, you resort once again to digging into YOUR compost heap and dragging out statements that I made back in 2011 or before. I have admitted that, initially, I, like most others, went along with characterizing Doorman's shirt as being plaid. I didn't think about, although I should have, and it was a mistake. But, I guess for you, mistakes are forever, like this one for instance:

But, I'll tell you how it works, bpete. You own your mistakes until you disown them. To do that, you have to admit that you were wrong and that you are retracting what you said. I have done that concerning early statements of mine referring to Doorman's shirt as plaid. It is NOT plaid. Plaid means horizontal and vertical lines crossing and forming boxes, and there is not a single box on Doorman's shirt. It just looks splotchy, and that is the result of haze, distortion, and light reflection, especially from worn, shiny areas on the shirt. 

 That I believe is the best scan we have of Doorman, but I could also put up one that Robin Unger provided, the HSCA scan.

It isn't plaid. It isn't the least bit plaid. Am I saying that we should be able to see at least some of the boxes if it were plaid? Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying.

And yes, Doorman's t-shirt descends into a vee, and even Anthony Botelho recognized that, in so many words.

Why doesn't the vee show in Wiegman? Well, as bad as Altgens is, the definition in Wiegman is even worse. I believe they deliberately blurred the film.

But, while we're at it, let's note that there isn't anything the least bit plaid about Wiegman Doorman's shirt.

Let's see you reconcile those two.

And now you want to quibble about my use of the word "immediately". Three months after the assassination in the context of 51 years having passed counts as immediately in my book. And what difference does it make whether it was 3 months or 3 weeks or 3 days? What does it matter? Quibbling for the sake of quibbling are we?

And no, what the FBI had on December 2 was THEIR statement about what Lovelady said. You must be one of those people who believed Bush the Lesser when he announced that Saddam was importing yellow cake from Niger and therefore we needed to attack. And because you, and others like you, believed him, there are now over a million Iraqis dead. Well over a million. That's what comes from believing government officials. 

So, you are wrong about everything in your usual bloodied way. And Robin Unger is just a complete idiot. Psst: those collages you linked to are completely irrelevant.