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

These are the two images furnished to show what the forensic anthropologists compared. Note that they are both flipped images, mirror images. 

The image of Lovelady on the left had the notation "circa 1959-1963" but what was that supposed to mean? That that is how he looked from 1959 to 1963? The truth is that that was taken before 1959, and Lovelady looked nothing like that in 1963. Here he is the winter of 1964, just a few months after the assassination, as taken by Mark Lane. You can see that Lovelady was practically bald and had protruding ears. 

But, the main point I want to make is that a photograph is a 2 dimensional rendering of a 3 dimensional object, and the angle and the distance from which it's taken affect the result. They claimed to take measurements, and remember what it means, to use a measuring stick of some kind to determine distance, but from photographs?  It is ridiculous to do that with photographs. 

Let's see what an honest comparison would have looked like:

Doorman's hairline doesn't match either of them. It matches the 1957 photo of Lovelady, but that's only because they moved it over. 

They plopped Lovelady's crown over on top of Oswald. This is what Doorman must have looked like before they altered him.

Be aware that that was done in 1963 by the photo altering team that the CIA had, and it was probably done at Jaggars- Chiles- Stovall, where Oswald used to work. You know that that photo lab wasn't catering to the public because what photo lab would call itself that if they were? U.S. intelligence and U.S Military provided all the business to Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. And it means that they must have had the so-called "wedding" photo of Lovelady in 1963. They call it the wedding photo but there is no chance that it was Lovelady's wedding because he didn't get married until 1961, and he was obviously much younger in the picture. So, they had the wedding photo, but they never made it public in 1963, nor did they submit it to the Warren Commission. But, the HSCA went public with it in 1979. But, the disturbing thing is that Lovelady was alive, and they could have brought him in. They could have asked him to provide photos of himself from the time of the assassination. If nothing else, he surely must have had photos from his 1961 wedding. But though they coerced many people to come in and speak to them, Lovelady wasn't one of them.  Then, when you consider that top HSCA attorney, Ken Brooten, actually resigned in order to represent Lovelady, the whole thing goes from the ridiculous to the surreal. 

Then the kicker is that Lovelady died suddenly of a heart attack at the age of 41 right before the HSCA Final Report came out. Here is an article describing the CIA's use of heart attack mimicking drugs to accomplish assassinations.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/644439/CIA-heart-attack-gun-Mary-Embree-Frank-Church-William-Colby

Here's another:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/cia-targeted-assassinations-by-induced-heart-attack-and-cancer/5326382

And another:

http://wariscrime.com/new/cia-assassinations-by-induced-heart-attack-and-cancer/