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

Christopher Hooks is a free lance journalist in Central Texas who writes for various publications. He recently wrote an article which included trashing my work on the JFK assassination and Oswald innocence, and I want to show you what he did. 

I don't mind that he put up my song, and I hope I got some views from it. Of course, that link isn't active, so here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joRXDSaU48U&t=25s

But, notice the sentence of mine that he quotes. He's obviously implying that I think that because Oswald and Doorman both wore long-sleeved shirts, that they must, therefore, be the same man, that the likeness of wearing a long-sleeved shirt is all it takes to cinch it. But, I'll show you where he got that. It's from the OIC website.

I tell you, I have to laugh. That son of a bitch took the first sentence, out of context, and quoted it like it was my complete thought. The point wasn't that wearing a long-sleeved shirt cinches anything, but rather, THAT THE ONLY OTHER MAN WHO COULD HAVE BEEN, AND WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN, DOORMAN, AND BY AUTHORITIES, REPORTED WEARING A SHORT-SLEEVED SHIRT.

The FBI put it in writing TWICE that Lovelady said he wore a short-sleeved shirt on 11/22/63. Here's one of them:

It says that he (Lovelady) stated that he was wearing a red and white vertical striped shirt and blue jeans. I realize that doesn't mention long sleeves, but, we have a photograph of him in that vertical striped shirt, and it happened to be short-sleeved.

What he is doing there is posing for the FBI. This was official. The date was February 29, 1964. And notice how his shirt is splayed open. That was done on purpose by him or someone else. They were trying to duplicate the look of Doorman, whose shirt is splayed open. There would have been no point in posing him like that and taking his picture like that unless it were the same clothes he wore on 11/22. 

So, what do you think? Are they the same clothes? And if they're not the same clothes, then these below have to be the same clothes. 

And they sure as Hell look like the same clothes and the same man. Of course, they are. But, let's go back to the Lovelady picture for a moment. 

That isn't even an honest picture of Lovelady. How do I know? Because the great Mark Lane snuck a picture of Lovelady at the same time, an unauthorized picture, and when I say unauthorized I mean that the Dallas Police and the FBI were threatening to arrest journalists and charge them with a crime if they tried to photograph Lovelady. But, Mark Lane did it anyway. And this is what he got: 

That is the real Billy Lovelady.  He was quite bald already in 1963/64. Not everybody is lucky when it comes to hair. And he also had protruding ears, which are also called prominent ears. About 3 or 4 percent of the population have protruding ears, and Lovelady was one of them. Doorman, however, did not have protruding ears. 

Yeah, poor ol' Billy had Dumbo ears, all right.  Dems da breaks. 

So, am I saying that the FBI criminally altered the other photo, giving Lovelady more hair and hiding his conspicuously prominent ears? Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. 

But, let's return now to Christopher Hooks and what he wrote.

It's amazing to me that evil men- and the men who killed Kennedy were certainly evil men- can get other men, from other generations, to continue their evil work, and without any contact or planning. It all happens just because of the way the system works; the way it is organized. 

But this concerns journalism, and journalists are supposed to be thorough-going and painstaking; they are supposed to be non-manipulative and both propaganda-sensitive and propaganda-proof. But, this kind of blatant dishonesty, where he just put up one sentence to falsely imply something that was very different from what I was saying, is really despicable. It's beyond the pale. But, it certainly is a sign of the times.