This has to be Shelley and Lovelady because they both said that they were there at that exact spot, at that exact time, doing what those two guys were doing, which was walking to the railroad yard.

Notice that they appear to be the same height. Shelley and Lovelady were both 5'8". Notice that the more slender one is wearing a suit. Shelley, who was more slender than Lovelady, wore a suit. And the other man is wearing a shirt that looks like the one that Lovelady posed in for the FBI. And when I say posed, I mean that he unbuttoned the buttons of the shirt to mimic the look of Doorman. Why would he do that unless he was wearing the same shirt?

So, if you are going to claim that these two are not Shelley and Lovelady, then you have to produce another set of men in that place and that time. If you are going to claim that these are two other guys who just, by random coincidence, happened to look like both Shelley and Lovelady, and be dressed like them, fine. You still have to show me the real Shelley and Lovelady because they were there, so they have to be there.

But, you don't have another Shelley and Lovelady to show me. Therefore, these two are Shelley and Lovelady, whether you like it or not. And Lovelady is wearing a short-sleeved shirt. He was NOT the Doorman.

 Lovelady can't possibly be Doorman because we have an image of him from 11/22 from the Couch film, and in it, he's wearing the same shirt that he later posed in for the FBI. And that shirt is short-sleeved. So, he can't possibly be Doorman. This is the same man wearing the same shirt.

 This phony clip of Lovelady milling around in front of the TSBD after the assassination is not from 11/22/63. It was fabricated later; much later. It may have been years later because it wasn't proffered until 1966. Therefore, it could have been made in 1965. And the reason why it was made was because Harold Weisberg was touring the country proclaiming Oswald in the doorway because Lovelady wore a striped shirt. Note that Doorman did not wear a plaid shirt. Look at the collars of the shirts. It's Doorman on the left, and it's plain as day that he did not wear a flashy plaid shirt. 

The contrast in his shirt is not a plaid pattern. It is just due to light reflection plus distortion from the enlargement of the image. 

The plaid shirt idea was stupid from the beginning. 

But, getting back to the Gorilla Man clip, the young black man on the left is supposed to be Bonnie Ray Williams, even though he was inside at the time. And the dark haired man walking by is supposed to be Danny Arce, who wasn't there either. 

Lovelady is smoking, even though he doesn't have a pack of cigarettes in his shirt pocket. So, where did he get the cigarette? And the woman in curlers, and the one next  to her wearing the scarf may not have been there because they don't move the slightest bit. They are as still as a Cigar Store Indian. The woman in the scarf may supposed to be Babushka Lady. The man in the Fedora hat, top left, is supposed to be Fedora Man from the Altgens photo. So, they brought in the whole cast of characters for this phony clip. 

 We don't know that Carolyn Arnold had any hesitancy when she said she saw Oswald at the doorway, shortly before the shooting. She wasn't allowed to make her own statement. She wasn't allowed to choose her own words. An FBI Agent named Richard E. Harrison did the writing, and he's the one who said that she thought she saw Oswald. And he knew how contrary it was to the official story. He and every other FBI agent- minions of J. Edgar Hoover that they were- knew that Oswald having done it was the law of the land.

And remember that Carolyn Arnold was a 19 year old girl at the time. There were grown men who trembled in their shoes when confronting America’s Gestapo, the FBI. And I’m sure that the FBI’s displeasure with what she was saying got through to her real fast. Fortunately for history, she stuck to her guns.

But, when the FBI returned to the TSBD on March 18, 1964, that’s when their Gestapo ways went down full-force. They demanded statements from every employee and made them sign them. Read Breach of Trust by Professor Gerald McKnight. And they got Carolyn Arnold to revise her statement and say that she didn’t see Oswald at all.

Notice that I didn’t say “change her mind.” I said: revise her statement. And what Gerald McKnight does so well in Breach of Trust is show us why it’s sound to believe that her first statement, on November 26, was the credible one; it was the truthful one.

But in the sign-it-or-be-damned statement they forced her to sign on March 18, they did allow her to use the real time that she went outside, which was 12:25, which was just 5 minutes before the motorcade arrived. Carolyn was one of the last to get out there. She was with two other secretaries (her friends) and they all said they were late in getting out there. Was it due to Carolyn being so very pregnant? Perhaps. Harrison actually made it that it was “a few minutes before 12:15” that she believed she saw Oswald. People don’t even talk that way. Can’t you see what his piddly little mind was trying to do? He was trying to leave Oswald enough time to get up to the 6thfloor to kill Kennedy. I guess he thought that 15 minutes was enough. But, smarter minds than his at the FBI, upon seeing his report, realized that it was still fatal to the official story to have Oswald at the doorway a few minutes before 12:15.

And it’s probably why the Gestapo descended on the TSBD to get signed statements on March 18. It was mainly, if not exclusively, damage control over Carolyn Arnold. And since they were getting her to sign a new statement denying that she ever saw Oswald that day, they let her put the real time she left to go outside, which was 12:25.

So, as Dr. McKnight lays out in Breach of Trust, what the astute observer will do is take her statement of what she saw from November 26, and marry it with her time from March 18, and that will give you the truth.

As for her supposed statement in 1976 changing her story completely yet again, it is a joke! No one should take it seriously. In it, she supposedly said that as she was leaving to go downstairs at 12;25 , she saw Oswald eating alone in the 2ndfloor lunchroom. THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE IT IS ESTABLISHED BEYOND DOUBT THAT OSWALD ATE IN THE FIRST FLOOR LUNCH ROOM, ALSO KNOWN AS THE DOMINO ROOM, AND IT WAS EARLY IN THE LUNCH BREAK. Three investigators wrote that down that down: Fritz, Hosty, and Bookhout. And why would Oswald lie about where he ate lunch? Again, you should read Breach of Trust, in which McKnight asked: What are you going to believe? Something that someone said at the time, or a new story that they came up with OVER 5000 DAYS LATER?

And Earl Golz himself was a joke. At the Dallas Morning News, he was the staff reporter who wrote about UFOs and other strange sightings. Why would Carolyn Arnold go to him? If she wanted to change her story, why didn’t she go to the police or to the FBI?

But remember: it was during the HSCA, and Oswald in the doorway had reared its ugly head again. Claiming that Oswald was on the 2nd floor eating during the assassination was a way of getting him out of the doorway.

There is zero chance that that was true. And to claim that it’s true means that Oswald ate two lunches that day.

Of course, that’s impossible because he only had one lunch: cheese sandwiches and an apple from Mrs. Paine’s house, as he told Fritz. The workers were let go 15 minutes early precisely because of the motorcade. So, they got off work at 11:45. So, why would Oswald wait until 12:25 to eat? He had nothing else to do for 40 minutes. He had no one to talk to because he didn’t talk to anybody there. He was a recluse; a loner. And he didn’t have any love letters to write to Judyth Baker or Marina. So, of course, he went and ate right away. And he ate where he always ate, the first floor lunch room, which is where he habitually stored his lunch, and where there was a newspaper that he could browse through while he was eating.

This is Carolyn Arnold below Oswald in the doorway in the Dave Wiegman film. Read Breach of Trust.

 Bob Burgess posted the top collage showing the hairlines of Doorman, Young Lovelady, and Oswald. And he's right that, for the hairline, the match is between Doorman and Young Lovelady, and Oswald is the odd man out.

But, Bob is being bamboozled. They didn't just decide to claim that Oswald was Lovelady. They knew they had to do something to make him look like Lovelady. The picture of Young Lovelady in the middle was from 1957. Do you notice how IDENTICAL his hair is to that of Doorman? That is a huge problem because you know that hair is a highly fluctuating thing, that it is constantly growing, and constantly falling out (even if you're not going bald, and Lovelady was going bald). And, it is also intermittently being cut. It's also affected by weather, humidity, diet, hydration, and how you slept on it,.

So, what are the chances that Lovelady would have the EXACT SAME HAIR IN EVERY RESPECT over a 6 year time span? If we took out a picture of you from 6 years ago, would your hair look exactly the same as it looks today? That perfect likeness between Doorman and Young Lovelady should jump out at you as a major concern that something is terribly wrong; that evil is lurking. It is too damn good. It is exactly the same, and it's because it is the same thing. They moved it over. They took Young Lovelady's "crown" and moved it over to Doorman. They replaced the top of Oswald's head.

I have added to his collage my collage which shows you how Doorman looked, approximately, before they started tampering with him. And they did a lot more than just change the top of his head.

 

On the right is Billy Lovelady, a half hour after the shooting. He had escorted police up to the 6th floor, and he was hanging out with them. It is certainly him. He said he did that, and others said he did it. Notice how burly he was at the time. The FBI weighed and measured him in February, and they said he was 5'8" 170 pounds. And I have the feeling that he was heavier than that in November, that he lost weight. That's because it was stressful being told to lie.

But, this is him on the day, and you can see how he was. Now, don't complain about the poor quality of the image because it's not my image. The fact is that they deliberately blurred most of the JFK images, including both films and photos. They didn't want us to get a good look at him. But, despite the blur, you can see that he was not gaunt and slender like Doorman, who has Oswald's build. Oswald was 5'9", 131 pounds, which looks right for Doorman.

And notice Doorman's sunken t-shirt. It's collar looks v-shaped. It was not designed that way. Oswald had the habit of stretching his t-shirts by tugging on them. But, Lovelady's round collar looks untampered with. And this was the very day. So, there is no doubt that Lovelady could not be Doorman. He was too burly, including having a thick, burly neck. And he was too heavy.

And by the way: the guy next to Doorman isn't even real. He wasn't there. No one has ever identified him. That's because it's impossible. And optically and photographically, the interface between him and Doorman is impossible. You can't find another photo like that, and you couldn't duplicate it if you tried. The man behind is cutting off Doorman's left shoulder, while Doorman is cutting off his right shoulder. So, they are both in front of and behind the other at the same time. What it shows is a photographic impossibility. Again: you could never duplicate that image by arranging two men and taking their picture. Go ahead and try. I dare you.

 So, the HSCA was just as corrupt as the WC. And the chilling thing is that Lovelady died suddenly just before the HSCA Final Report came out, supposedly of a heart attack at age 41, with no known history of heart disease. It's not that it's impossible because people have had heart attacks even in their 20s. But, it is extremely rare at age 41, to have a fatal first heart attack.

The fact is that Lovelady was no good at lying, and they knew it. In 1967, CBS paid him to return to Dallas for photos and an interview, which they did. They were going to devote a big segment of their JFK Special to him and the Doorman controversy. But, after interviewing him, they trashed the whole thing. Someone with brains realized that broadcasting Lovelady's interview was going to harm the official story- not help it.

So, how many interviews or even transcripts of interviews of Lovelady were there? It's a nice round number; zero.

I'll leave you with Lovelady's arrow. Be aware that when Joseph Ball asked him to draw an arrow to himself on the photo, he gave him a photo with a big arrow already on it pointing to Doorman, which was drawn by Frazier. Talk about a subtle hint. But, Lovelady just wouldn't go along. Instead, he drew a tiny arrow to the headless man who was visoring his eyes. Why is he headless? Because they took out his head. And that's because he was Lovelady.

But, although Ball told him to draw his arrow in the black, Lovelady must have intuitively made sure he caught the arm, so that it would register. This is Billy Lovelady telling us that he was not Doorman. And that photo of the headless man is a physical and optical impossibility. I dare anyone to try to duplicate it. You can't!- at least not in this universe. That is a black and white photograph, but there is red blood all over it, and I mean the blood of Kennedy, Tippit, Oswald, and many more.

The 61st anniversary is upon us, so join me in proclaiming, "Stop the lies! Oswald outside!"

 

People need to be smart and observant when they look at this collage. We just had an election in which Trump got 295 electoral college votes and Harris got 226. You can't point to any of her 226 and say that she won. She lost. Well, it's the same here. You can't point to what you think is a disparity between Doorman and Oswald, and say that they're different men, and that's because the likenesses are just too great; they are overwhelming.

For instance, besides looking very much alike, with the same gaunt face and slender build and long neck and matching ears, chin, nose, etc., their clothes also match. Some want to say that Doorman's shirt pattern is different, but no, that's just light reflection and the distortion of the photographic enlargement. And look at all that matches about their clothes: the sunken t-shirt with the misshapen margin, the outer shirt unbuttoned and sprawled open, and the matching flat shirt collars. There is way too much likeness there to doubt that they are the same man wearing the same clothes.

The world of men is huge, and every single one of them looks different except for identical twins, and even they may look different because they try to look different, such as one having short hair and the other having long hair.

The likeness of the man and the clothing in this case is so great here that there is no doubt that they are the same man. And keep in mind that Lovelady was 40 pounds heavier than Oswald and an inch shorter. Does Doorman look like he's 40 pounds heavier than Oswald?

There is irony in this for me because I just made a movie in which the great Civil Rights lawyer Dovey Roundtree beat the U.S. Department of Justice at the Towpath Murder Trial by pointing out to the jury that the star witness for the prosecution said that the man he saw standing over the dead body of Mary Pinchot Meyer (the last mistress of JFK) was 5'8 to 5'10 and weighed 185 pounds. The defendant Raymond Crump was 5' 3 1/2" and weighed 130 pounds. That's what it said on his driver's license. And she won the case that way by pointing to the discrepancy between the witness's description and the vitals of her client.

Well, the same mental process applies here except in this case, it is not the differences but the likenesses between Oswald and Doorman that cinch that they are the same man who was standing in the doorway of the Texas Book Depository when JFK got shot.

What I'm saying is that, just as the election is over, so is this controversy over. It WAS Oswald in the doorway.

Look, Jack Smith is ending his cases against Trump and emptying his desk. The people who have been prosecuting Oswald need to do the same. This is the same guy wearing the same clothes.

 This is Billy Lovelady and Bill Shelley about a minute after the shooting. The two of them joined the throng of people who flooded the railroad yard. They looked around a little and then returned to work BY WAY OF THE BACK DOOR. They never returned to the front. So, that means the footage supposedly of Lovelady in front 10 minutes after the shooting can't possibly be him .

It is from the Malcolm Couch film, and Gerda Dunkel is the one who found it and posted it.

Notice that Lovelady's arm shows bare skin, above and below his elbow. Hence, he was wearing short-sleeves. So, he can't possibly be the Doorway Man.

To those who will try to deny that it is Shelley and Lovelady: you can't. That's because they said they were there doing that. So, if these two guys are different guys, then they, Shelley and Lovelady, still have to be there. So, if you are going to deny that it's them, then you have to go back to the Couch film and find another set of guys who are them, and in the same spot. Good luck with that.

Gerda had it right. This is Shelley and Lovelady.

 On the left is a group of longshoremen who worked together. I couldn't find a group of warehousemen who worked together, so I settled for that. Notice that every one of them has a distinct look, which isn't surprising since they each have their own DNA. And notice that every single one of them is wearing a unique, distinctive outfit of clothes. No two of them are dressed the same. Yet, we are supposed to believe that Oswald and Lovelady looked and dressed in the startling likeness that we see on Oswald and Doorman.

It is almost 2025. It isn't the Dark Ages. Recognizing that the two images on the right are of the same man wearing the same clothes should be instantaneous. That's because we have been looking at people our whole lives, their unique characteristics and their unique clothing from the vast world of clothing.

Nobody could be stupid enough to honestly think that two unrelated men just happened to look, and dress, that much alike.

It isn't about seeing. It's about wanting. I mean wanting Oswald not to be the man in the doorway because it rattles your paradigm.

Well, snap the pluck out of it because he WAS the man in the doorway. And this is me, rhetorically, splashing a cup of cold water in the faces of the deniers.

 It's fortunate that we know the heights and weights of both Oswald and Lovelady. Oswald was weighed and measured by the Dallas Police, and they found him to be 5'9", 131 pounds. I learned that directly from Professor Gerald McKnight, of Hood College, the author of Breach of Trust, and one of the early and most ardent advocates of Oswald in the doorway. I spoke to him, at length, over the phone, several times. He died in 2021.

Lovelady was weighed and measured by the FBI, and they reported him to be 5'8" 170 pounds.

So, we're talking about a 40 pound difference, in which the shorter man was the heavier one.

And, it is certainly reasonable to assume that such a Laurel and Hardy difference would show up in photographs, just as it does in films.

But, when you look at Doorman and Oswald, they look exactly the same in their physicality. They both look lean and asthenic. They look like they were the same weight. That's because they were the same weight, being the same man.

Folks, the Bloodied will never admit it, but it undeniably true that Doorman was Oswald. And when I say "undeniably" I mean except for the ability of anybody to claim anything. Like the little boy with cookie crumbs all over his face and hands, who continues to deny that he raided the cookie jar, these people will persist in their denials. But, I am pointing to logic here, that there is no weight and size difference between these two men. There is simply no way that one was 40 pounds heavier than the other and an inch shorter.

You know that I made a movie about the trial over the murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer, who was the last mistress of JFK. And in the trial, famed Civil Rights Attorney Dovey Roundtree hammered the jury with the fact that the State's star witness, Henry Wiggins, claimed that the man he saw was 5'8" and 185 pounds, while the defendant Raymond Crump was only 5' 3 1/2" and 130 pounds. That's what it said on his driver's license.

I have the transcript of the trial. It can't be found online. So, I went to the cousin of Mary Pinchot Meyer, Mike Pinchot, and got it from him. I am posting part of Dovey's Closing Argument to the jury. She told them to look at the defendant, whom she referred to as Exhibit A, and ask themselves if he is 185 pounds. And if he's not, then they need to acquit him.

It's the same situation here because when looking at Oswald and Doorman, if you can see that there is not a 40 pound weight difference between them, then you know they can't be Oswald and Lovelady, that they must be Oswald and Oswald. Listen to Dovey.

 It is actually insane to claim that these are not the same man, Lee Harvey Oswald, because the likeness is so great. .The shape of the face, the length of the neck (which varies a lot among people) the depth and spacing of the eyes, the shape of the nose, as well as the ears, the width of the mouth, and shape of the chin. To suggest that another man looked that much like him is absurd. But, added to it is the fact that they are obviously wearing the same clothes; the same outfit, including the same ruffled t-shirt with the stretched, sunken collar, plus the outer shirt that is unbuttoned, with the grainy texture, with the same flat collar and the furl beneath it. To suggest that another man not only looked that much like him but also dressed that much like him is insane.

 You should watch this video of CIA Chief William Colby testifying to the Church Committee in 1975. In it, he explains that the CIA developed a special gun, a modified 38, that fired a frozen dart that was armed with shellfish toxin, a deadly nerve agent, that could travel 100 meters. The sound it made was very low amplitude, and on impact, it felt like nothing more than a mosquito bite. But, it was capable of killing, and it was designed to kill.

They used that gun to incapacitate JFK, both physically and mentally, before he reached the Kill Zone. He was shot as soon as the limo completed the horseshoe turn from Houston to Elm. The shot was taken from a low floor in the Dal-Tex building, directly behind him. And the distance of the shot was much less than 100 meters, which was the range of the gun according to Colby. So, it was within range.

And there is no doubt about this because we can see the effects of the poisoning in the Zapruder film, where JFK has lost control of his muscles. He is in tetanic spasm, and even Jackie was unnerved by it. With her hands, she tried to coax him to put his arm down, but he didn't. He couldn't. In fact, his tetany spread. It worsened as he sat there. And the fact is that he may have died from it if he hadn't been shot again and died from that because it may have spread to his respiratory muscles and prevented him from breathing. That is how people die from strychnine poisoning.

But, he also suffered a complete mental collapse. He lost his ability to speak. And, it wasn't because he was shot in the throat because it didn't damage his larynx. And if a mentally sound person is unable to speak, he or she will try to communicate another way, such gesturing, pointing, demonstrating. But, Kennedy's mind was gone. It was like he had a frontal lobotomy.

And it may have been more than one toxin in that ice flechette. It may have been a cocktail of agents to physically and mentally incapacitate him.

Now listen to William Colby. And remember that he died under very suspicious circumstances.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?408557-1/william-colby-church-committee-testimony

 Some are trying to claim that the circled lamppost in Willis is the one that was close to the Stemmons Freeway sign, but it's not. It was definitely closer than that. You can see how close it was in the Jim Ryan photo on the right. What it means is that the Willis photo is dirty. It is foul. Blood-soaked and foul. It is art. Kennedy-killing art. And don't anyone try to tell me that it's just a different angle.

 Now, people are claiming that the reason LIFE magazine distorted what the Zapruder film showed, hiding the fatal head shot, in effect lying to the American people about what happened, was because Zapruder wanted it that way.

If it were true that Zapruder tried to tell them not to publish Z-313, and I don't believe it, they would have told him, in a gentle, kind way:

"We understand how you feel, Mr. Zapruder. But you see, we have a responsibility to tell the truth to the American people about what happened. And they are entitled to know it because all of them are affected. And sooner or later, the whole film is likely to be released, and they'll see it anyway. So because of the grave importance that this has to the history and the future of this country, we simply have to use our own judgment about it. I'm sorry to disappoint you, and I hope you understand."

And Zapruder would have nodded, and that would have been the end of it.

The claim that pleasing Zapruder was the reason LIFE magazine lied to 190 million Americans is complete bull shit.

And consider also that even if that ridiculous claim were true, couldn't they have at least described what was there?

"The film contains a frame which shows the President taking the fatal head shot, but we're not publishing it at the insistence of Mr. Zapruder. However, in it, you can see the explosive effect with a large cloud of misty red blood. It is very graphic."

Wouldn't they have at least done that? Or did Zapruder also forbid them from describing it?

I'm attaching what they published, and it is all a lie. It is all they said about the fatal head shot, which is to say: nothing.

Everything you are going to read in their statement is a lie. Jackie was aware that something was terribly wrong long before frame 262, which is what they're claiming. She started ignoring the spectators and became focused on her husband before they even reached the bogus freeway sign in the film. And when she reached over to help, what she did was try to get him to put his spastic arm down. She took his arm above and below the elbow. You can see that. And she tried to get him to relax, to put his arm down. She was coaxing it down. But, it didn't help because he was in spasm. And it wasn't from trauma; it was from the nerve agent. And as she pressed, the effect was to get him to lean a little- to tilt his whole body towards her. But, his spasms just continued and got worse.

And he may have died from it, had he not received the fatal head shot and died from that, because it's obvious that his spasticity was worsening, and it may have spread to his respiratory muscles. And if you can't breathe, you can't live.

When it says, "the President collapses on his wife's shoulder" it is referring to Z-322. So nothing was said about him having been shot at 313. If they couldn't publish it because Zapruder said no, couldn't they have at least described it? It should be obvious to you that what they did had nothing to do with Zapruder. For some reason, they did not want to disclose the fatal head shot. And it had nothing to do with Zapruder.

So, the next time someone tries to tell you that they lied in order to please Zapruder, you'll know that they are lying again.