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

I have come to think that this is the best and most valuable collage of Oswald and Doorman, and I'll tell you why: When naysayers try to dispute the match, they claim there are two disparities between them: the hairline and the shirt pattern. 

Well, they're right about the hairlines; they don't match. But, it's only because Doorman's image was altered, and what they altered was the top of his head; his hairline. 

And, the HSCA played it up to the hilt too. They brought in their anthropologists, who are scientists. And these scientists claimed that Doorman's image is too blurry to take measurements, as they did with the images of Oswald and Lovelady. They did a detailed "anthropometric" comparison of Oswald's and Lovelady's faces. And one wonders why because if they couldn't include Doorman in the mix, what was the point? But, they did make some general statements, saying that, in general, Doorman looks more like Lovelady. (Of course, they were going to say that. Look who they were working for.) And then, they added, specifically, that Doorman's hairline was a match to Lovelady's where both had the reverse widow's peak: recession right in the center of the hairline. 

And this image on the left below is the one they used to make the comparison. They published it. Who is going to deny that those hairlines are the same?

  
But, they are only the same because photo-alterers used that image on the left to give Doorman a new hairline. Originally, Doorman must have had Oswald's hairline, but that original Altgens photo was no doubt destroyed when they did it.  

And, the irony is that it wasn't even Lovelady's hairline in 1963. The HSCA dated that image of Young Lovelady to 1959, but they never substantiated it. They provided no basis for claiming it. As I look at him, to me, he looks no more than 20 years old, which would date it to 1957.  But, even if the HSCA was right about the date, we know that Lovelady was a rapidly balding young man, and he certainly did not have the same hairline in 1963 that he had in 1959. And look how well those two hairlines match. You know that hair is constantly changing. It is constantly growing. It is constantly falling out. It is affected by weather, humidity, diet, sebaceous gland activity,  what you put on your hair and do to it, the way you slept on it the night before, etc. What are the chances that his hair would look exactly and precisely the same in length, cut, style, lay, etc. over 4 years? My hair doesn't look the same from one picture to the next over one month's time, never mind 4 years. That match is too good. It's the same image in both pictures. They moved the one from the left over to the right. 

But, the other thing the naysayers talk about, the other card they play, is the shirt pattern card, saying that Doorman's looks plaid like Lovelady's. Well, that is ridiculous because in no way does Doorman's shirt look plaid. Plaid means vertical and horizontal lines crossing and forming boxes. Lots and lots of boxes. Checkerboard. But, there isn't a single box on Doorman's shirt. So, how can it be considered plaid? What we are seeing is the fine graininess of Oswald's shirt plus the distorting effects of enlarging it mamothly, plus the haze that goes along with it. Also, there is the issue of light reflection. In bright light, Oswald's shirt would reflect the light. You might say it would sparkle. And that is also what we are seeing. But, in the image on the right, you can see the effect that it had and how it produced contrast within the photo.  This collage does a good job of showing it. 

So, when we use this collage we destroy that objection. The "different shirt pattern" argument dissolves to nothing, and all that's left is the "different hairline" argument. But, we have an effective retort to that: that they altered the photo. And think about it: Did Oswald and Lovelady look so much alike that the only difference between them was their hairlines? If that were true, then if each were wearing a baseball cap they would be indistinguishable twins because from the forehead down, they would look exactly alike, as these two do.

But, we know that wasn't true of Oswald and Lovelady. They certainly did not look that much alike. And for them to look this much alike, including the man and clothing, for everything except the hairline? That is impossible! So, the right explanation is that these two, Oswald and Doorman, were the same man, except that they changed Doorman's hairline to throw us off. And that's why it looks different and no other reason.

Yup. This is the money shot right here. The naysayers are trapped like rats in a corner with this collage, and they have no way out. It is like the cross was to Dracula.