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

Here we have the Lovelady shirts compared. On the left is from the clip that surfaced in 1966, said to be from the Martin film but it does not occur in the Martin film as we look at it. So, it's really just a lip-flapping thing; there is no evidence that it's from the Martin film other than the lip-flap. But supposedly, it was taken 10 or 15 minutes after the assassination when Lovelady was milling around outside the entrance, smoking. It could not possibly have been him since Lovelady reported that he left immediately with Shelley for the railway yard and then went to the back door to reenter. But, whoever this guy was, he was wearing a shirt with a pocket flap, which you see boldly in the center of the image on the left. You see how the pocket flap, which was largely orange or red, overlapping the blue-black color which was the alternating color within the pattern. On the right is the shirt that Lovelady posed in for Robert Groden in 1976, and on it, there is no flap, and the only sign of a pocket at all is the stitching on the left side. It's strange that the pocket would lie so flush with the shirt when Lovelady habitually stuffed packs of cigarettes there.

Here is a collage of two Lovelady impostors.:

These are supposedly the same guy, filmed one hour and fifteen minutes apart, the one on the left occurring first. Notice how massive the arm is on the guy on the right. Notice the pocket flap on the guy on the left. Notice the pack of cigarettes on the guy on the right. The guy on the left was smoking but there were no cigarettes in his pocket. So, where did he get the cigarette? Do you think he bummed it off someone else? But, no one else in the image is smoking. Notice that the guy on the left's shirt is not spread open at all. So, what are we to think? That he had it spread open in the doorway, as seen in the Altgens photo, and then he buttoned it up after the shooting, and then he spread it open again a short while later? Then, they adjusted the aspect ratio to slenderize the guy on the right.

Why would anyone make excuses for this? It is obviously a sea of manipulation, a frenzy of photographic lies. There is a stench to it, and it stinks bad. And why would anyone who recognizes that the entire story of the JFK assassination, that Oswald shot Kennedy, is a lie defend this? If they would lie about what essentially happened, if they would start off with a gross lie in which an innocent man was framed, and where it involved, in advance, establishing phony Backyard Photos (how can any Oswald defender say they are real?) a phony paper trail of Oswald having ordered the rifle (read John Armstrong) then how can any of this be real? Why would any Oswald defender defend this and say that nothing is suspicious here; that nothing is out of line; that this part of the JFK story is OK? 

It is NOT OK, and the people who say it is OK are not OK. And I don't mean those who are paid to say it is OK. Those people are bad, but they are not hard to understand. But, it's the people who publicly say, unequivocally, that Oswald was framed and innocent, but then go on to defend this- they are the ones who are twisted. Of course, it may be that their public defense of Oswald is just a ploy to manipulate those who really do defend him- and that would be understandable too. It's a straight-up con job. But, I am talking about the people who sincerely say that Oswald was innocent, framed and innocent, and yet go on to defend these trumped up images of Lovelady- they are the twisted ones. They are disturbed. They are the ones who have truly lost it, mentally. They are having a nervous breakdown- intellectually. You wouldn't want to be one of these guys, Norwood I.