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

David Von Pein. 

You might call him a "first generation JFK cyber hitman" but without the criminal element, as far as I know. I've never known him to travel interstate to commit crimes against researchers he has targeted. 

But, back in the early days, meaning 2011, 2012, David Von Pein was a major attack dog against me. These days, he mostly steers clear of me. He doesn't like going mano-a-mano any more, not against me. He avoids direct confrontations with me. 

But, on a recent thread of mine on McAdams forum, he put up a couple links in response to me- without comment. 

The first link led to this collage.

It was in response to someone's complaint about only seeing collages of Oswald and Doorman (mine) but not seeing any of Lovelady and Doorman. So, DVP filled the void. 

But now, let's add some commentary to the above collage. Notice that Lovelady, on the right, has his shirt unbuttoned, like Doorman. He's posing as Doorman for the FBI, and that's why it's unbuttoned. But, why would he do that unless it was the same shirt he wore on 11/22/63? Notice that the shape of the sprawl is very different. Notice also his high round t-shirt, in contrast to Doorman's vee. And before you say there hairlines look about the same, there is no evidence or record that Lovelady ever wore his hair that short. Here he is in the Mark Lane photo.

He didn't have much hair, but he wore it longer than we see in the FBI photo. So, there is a word for how his hair looks in the FBI photo, and the word is: "fake". 

If you were going to fake hair in a photo, it would help a lot if you kept it real short like that. Long fake strands would be a dead giveaway. Am I saying that the FBI doctored Lovelady's image on the right to make him look, as much as possible, like Doorman? Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying. But, that likeness is nothing compared to this one:

  
The above one is like at Bingo night at John the Revelator Church. 

DVP's other link was this one, which is his Doorman page on his website:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/10/doorway-man-part-2.html

All the material there is old. It goes back to the early sparring days, on Education Forum. 

But, DVP started by acknowledging Doorman's v-shaped t-shirt opening, and he asked why Lovelady could not have been wearing a v-neck t-shirt. In no image did Lovelady ever wear a v-neck t-shirt, and it's doubtful they were even available. But then, DVP posted images of Oswald in which his t-shirt doesn't look vee. 

Realize something: it wasn't really a v-neck t-shirt. It was a regular round t-shirt that was deformed by Oswald through stretching it. His Marine buddy Anthony Botelho said that he had the habit of doing that. But, how much the vee manifested depended on whether the t-shirt was pulled down in front or in back. If it was pulled down in front, the vee would manifest, but if it was pulled down in back, the vee would not.

It wasn't sharp and pointed like a vee, but it was descending and low. It was vee-ish; that's all. And we have a quite images in which the "vee" was manifesting.

That's what I'm talking about, and it is very duplicitous to deny that it was there. Here's another:

You can easily see the vee on both, so stop obfuscating. 

Then DVP tries to make the argument that Lovelady also could have had the habit of stretching his t-shirts into a vee.

But, Lovelady didn't, as we can see in all his pictures. Furthermore, the vast majority of men don't have the habit. Do you have the habit? Do I have it? Does your brother-in-law have it? Most men don't have it. The default is that he didn't have the habit. David doesn't understand how probability analysis works. You can't just help yourself to probabilities when you need them. You can't just take one off the shelf. Unless there are evidence-based grounds to say that Lovelady had the habit (as there are for Oswald) you can't say it. You're not entitled to. It's not a card you're holding.

This isn't Imagination Day at Kindergarten where you just pull a "what if?" from out of thin air. 

Then, David put up images of Wally from Leave to Beaver, circa 1962, 1963 in which he is wearing a vee-neck t-shirt- and one with a very pronounced, deep vee, deeper than we see on Oswald or Doorman. 

I checked with a clothing manufacturing trade group and was told that v-neck t-shirts first became available in the early 1960s.  But, they took a long time to gain popularity, and although they are more popular today than ever before, they still comprise only 16% of the t-shirt market. What was it in the early 60s? Much less for sure. But, we're probably not talking about a t-shirt from the 1960s, but rather the 1950s, because Oswald's t-shirt was VERY old, threadbare, and tattered. 

 Do you see the hole in the t-shirt on the right, over his left shoulder, which is on our right? That's not a tear; it's a disintegration. It's an old t-shirt, at least a few years old. And that means it's from the 1950s. 

But, there is no doubt that the t-shirt was not a store-bought v-neck t-shirt like the one Wally wore, so why bring it up? It's not an issue. It was a standard t-shirt on Oswald that got stretched and deformed into a vee. I'll say it again:  It was a standard t-shirt on Oswald that got stretched and deformed into a vee. That's what we're talking about, and it makes Wally Cleaver irrelevant.    

Next, David brought up the Wiegman film in which we cannot ascertain a vee on Doorman. 

There is way too much distortion in the Wiegman film to make any judgment. Compare the two faces. In Wiegman there is no face at all, that is, no discernible facial features. And by the way, the distortion in the Wiegman film was DELIBERATE. They deliberately blurred the film so that we wouldn't get a good look at Doorman. It's your people who did it, David. So, talk about irony. 

Peinhead even at the audacity to note the clarity of this Weigman frame, as if it was a lucky accident of "freezing" the frame right:

No, no, no. The above frame is a single island of clarity in an otherwise slurpy mess. It came from Robin Unger, and it's proof that a clear version of the Wiegman film exists somewhere. "They" have it, but "they" won't show it- except for the above frame. And the Doorman that we see there is a fabrication. He was put into the film. Oswald had left for the lunch room by then, so they stuck him in there as a surrogate. He's a different man.

 Next, David moves on to the exchange with the reporter in the hall, in which the reporter conveniently asked if he was in the building at the time. Not: "Were you outside with the others?" but rather "Were you in the building at the time?" How would Oswald have responded to the first question? We'll never know, but it's an interesting question.

But, if you've ever been to that doorway, you know that it's like a cave. Oswald wasn't out on the street. He was three feet from the front door and still very much within the confines of the building. So, he didn't distinguish it to a reporter. But, when he was alone with police, he told them that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front."

That trumps it, Peinhead. You played, and you lost. 

You presume that Oswald should have distinguished it to the reporter, grabbed his chance to shout it to the world, but why? Oswald didn't know that his picture was taken in the doorway, so it had no special significance to him. We're talking about this because of the existence of the photograph.  Understand?  HE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE PHOTOGRAPH!  Nevertheless, with police, he did clarify that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front." And those were just cryptic shorthand notes. Oswald probably said more than that. He may have elaborated. 

Fact: the Fritz Notes, which came to light in the late 1990s during the ARRB are the most significant and important evidence to surface in the JFK assassination since 1963. 

DVP: Ralph Cinque actually believes that various films (the Martin film and the WFAA news film taken at the DPD) were "faked" in order to "plant" the image of Billy Lovelady in them.

Yes! I do! I most certainly do. And it's all detailed on the OIC website:

http://www.oswald-innocent.com/lovelady.html

There are NO legitimate images of Billy Lovelady from 11/22/63. They were all faked- every last one of them.

Peinhead provided this quote from HSCA which I believe was written by the turncoat Robert Groden.

"The photographic analysis of the shirt in the photograph established that it corresponded more closely with the shirt worn that day by Lovelady."

Oh really? 

It was just a brazen, bold-faced lie. 

Then David gets to CE 369 and the arrows. But, there is only one arrow, in the white, and it is Frazier's arrow. 

 That arrow, which jumps out at us, is Frazier's arrow. The only other mark on the photo is a little line on the forearm of Black Hole Man, which is the tail of Lovelady's arrow.

Now, if that's not correct, then you show me the other arrow "in the dark" which points to Doorway Man. It doesn't exist. 

You lost on every point, David. I'm reminded of the old joke about the guy who arrived late to the basketball game. He asks his friend what the score is, and the guy says 72. 

72? What do you mean 72? What's the other team got?

Like I said, 72. We got 70; they got 2. 

Except in your case, you don't even have 2. It's like 70 to zero.

It's over, David. Oswald was innocent. He was standing in the doorway during the shooting, and you can't squirm your way around it. 

It's going very bad for your side, in case you don't know it. Your sky is falling. Your world is collapsing.  And it's only going to get worse from here. You best prepare for total capitulation. It's coming.