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

James Norwood claims that the official timeline, which he accepts, precludes the possibility of any alterations, and therefore, the alterations which I and Larry Rivera and others have found in the Altgens photo do not have to be addressed. They do not have to be answered to. They don't have to be refuted in photographic terms because the timeline is like a trump card which can be played at will, and it precludes the need for any counterarguments to the claims of alteration. 

Wow, I think James is destined to become the leader among his new pals, Joseph Backes, Bpete, Lance Upperpunk, Robin Unger, etc. because he's showing them how unnecessarily hard they've been working. Here, they have been countering all the claims of alteration with counterclaims of non-alteration when all they had to do was cite the timeline. James' message to them is that they shouldn't even dignify the claims of alteration with counterclaims. Don't even go there. There's no need. Just sweep it all away in one stroke with the timeline. 

But, there is a problem with that approach, although I don't think it's dawned on James.    

It is that the timeline card can only be played with the Altgens photo. What about the films? You can't play the timeline card with them. 

I've been saying for a long time that all the sightings of Lovelady in a plaid shirt on 11/22/63 are fake. He didn't wear a plaid shirt. He wore a short-sleeved striped shirt, and the FBI put it in writing to the Warren Commission.

When Harold Weisberg started bellyaching about that in 1966, that's when the very first sighting of Lovelady in a plaid shirt surfaced. It was three years after the assassination. It was supposedly taken on the day of the assassination, but we are supposed to believe that nobody noticed that Lovelady was in it until 1966. 

I have pointed out that the clip is fake because the Lovelady figure in it was not Lovelady.

And I have got a bevy of doctors, including medical doctors, chiropractors, and one osteopath who stated that anatomically these were two different men, that they could not possibly be the same man.

And if that's true, it means the film clip was faked, that it's a fraud. 

But, James Norwood can't play timeline card about this, and that's because there was plenty of time. The clip was NEVER seen as part of the film from which they claim it was derived, the Martin film. It has appeared only in various compilations, such as the DCA compilation. 

But, the DCA compilation came out in 1964, so why wasn't it noticed then? How come, upon viewing it, nobody but nobody said, "Hey! Wait a second! That's Billy Lovelady!" It wasn't on anyone's radar until 1966. It simply didn't exist, as far as anyone can tell, until 1966.

So, that allows three years to get it made, if indeed I am right that the clip is a fake, fraudulent thing. 

3 years? They made Ben Hur in less time than that. They made Ben Hur and The Ten Commandments both in less time than that. So, you can't even think about playing the timeline card in regard to this. 

So, now what is James going to do? What card is he going to play next?

Well, I can tell you what he is not going to do. He is not going to try to defend it. He's not going to try to deny the anatomical differences between that man and Lovelady, such as their ears. 

Do you think James Norwood is going to claim that those two ears are one and the same ear? No, no, no. Not a chance. That's not his thing. He doesn't venture into that realm. He would sooner venture into Lance Upperpunk's dungeon than to do that. 

No, what James is going to do is to just stick with general, blanket dismissal, in one form or another, pointing out that I'm not a photo or film expert, that only experts can discern such things, etc. 

But, it's ridiculous because, in this case, it isn't even a photographic question; it is an anatomical question. There is nothing arcane about this from a photographic standpoint. We're seeing two ears in profile. Are they the same ear or not? And if they're not, then they can't be the same man. 

So, the inability to play a timeline trump card in this case stands out. But, it's the same way for all the other films as well. 

The clip of Lovelady in the squad room wasn't "discovered" until the 1970s. Of course, it was supposedly filmed on 11/22/63, but nobody noticed it, cited it, or talked about it until 1970s. Why wasn't it brought up in 1966 at the same time that Gorilla Man was brought up? Why didn't Harold Weisberg bring it up? Harold Weisberg addressed Gorilla Man extensively, pointing out that his shirt wasn't unbuttoned and sprawled open the way Doorman's was.

But, why didn't Harold, at the same time, address the Squad room sighting of Lovelady? It's because he didn't know about it. In fact, I don't know that Harold Weisberg ever addressed the Squad room sighting of Lovelady. Why didn't Harold Weisberg address the Hughes film sighting of Lovelady?

Granted, he looks very different from the Martin film sighting of Lovelady. But, what did Harold Weisberg say about it? Nothing!

Is there any reason to think that those two were the same man at the same time wearing the same clothes?

James Norwood doesn't just deny the Altgens alterations; he denies all the film alterations and concoctions that followed. But, he can't do it by claiming there wasn't enough time. When you've got years to do something, you've got plenty of time. 

And it means that if you're going to take a stand on these films, one way or another, you have got to get into the fray. You have got to roll up your sleeves, get out a magnifying glass, and start examining the images. And if you're unwilling to do that, or if you don't think you're qualified to do it, then you've got no business rendering any opinions at all.

And no, it is not necessary for me to discover exactly when it was done, and exactly who did it. I don't have to provide any names. 

There is a great deal of discussion today about the Zapruder film alterations, but I haven't heard Doug Horne or John Costella cite any names of who the film alterers were or who put them up to it. Dr. David Mantik talks about the alterations of the autopsy photos and the autopsy x-rays, but I've never heard him cite any names either. They don't need to, and neither do I. 

Who created the Backyard photos? I don't claim to know. I know that Jack White suggested the Roscoe White may have been the figure with the anvil-like chin over whose body Oswald's face was implanted.     

Just the other day, John Armstrong raised the issue of this image of Oswald when he was in Russia that was published in the Ft. Worth paper. Obviously, it wasn't the Lee Harvey Oswald of fame. Do we have to be photo experts to recognize that? But, who did this? Who was behind it? Who was responsible? I don't know. You want a name? I don't have one. And I don't think John Armstrong does either. But, it doesn't make this bogus image of the Oswald who went to Russia any less bogus. 

The JFK assassination is, I strongly suspect, the most photographically altered event of all time. There may not be another event that even comes close to it. To be a non-alterationist in regard to the JFK assassination? You might as well say that Oswald shot Kennedy.