This is one of the two versions of Lovelady at the table in the Squad room, both of which were fake. In this one, they took real footage, and the inserted the Lovelady figure into it. Notice that no one looks at or acknowledges "Lovelady". They act like he wasn't there. He wasn't. 

 Lovelady never claimed to see Oswald at the PD. He was asked by Joseph Ball when the last time was that he saw Oswald, and Lovelady said that it was at the TSBD. We would have to believe that he forgot all about being in the middle of this media frenzy. The footage is real, but the "Lovelady" figure was added to it, and it was done in the 1970s. 

 There is a man C.A.A. Savastano who has a hit-piece site about me, and it's been there since 2018. He  doesn't name me, but he quotes extensively from my website, the Oswald Innocence Campaign:  http://oswald-innocent.com

Let's consider now some of his statements. He says: 

Witnesses affirm Bill Lovelady not Lee Oswald was on the front steps of the Depository during this photograph and Oswald being absent does not prove he assassinated President Kennedy. Yet it does support he was not in front of the building during the shots.

The witnesses who affirmed Billy Lovelady were hand-picked for that reason. It's not as though there was any chance that the Warren Commission was going to hear from anyone who affirmed that it was Oswald in the doorway. The whole thing was a Stalinist show trial. So, it is meaningless and deceptive to make the claim that Savastano made. And it's not even accurate since Carolyn Arnold told the FBI on November 26 that she saw Oswald at the doorway shortly before the motorcade arrived. And true to form, the WC never called her in to testify.

Now, there is no doubt that Lovelady was in the doorway too, but he was not Doorman, and he never claimed to be. Realize that there was never a time that Joseph Ball pointed to Doorman and said to Lovelady, "Tell me who this is." And there was never a time that Lovelady said, "I was the Doorman, standing next to the white column." Instead, they talked around it and tinkered with arrows, but as you read Lovelady's testimony, it's clear that he did not want to say that he was Doorman, and he didn't.

Savastano went to great lengths to establish that other employees testified that Lovelady was out there with them. And he was! It is him, on the right, the faceless guy.

Of course, it is not physically possible for such an image to be rendered. And the irony is that Lovelady was visoring his eyes because so much light was entering them; it was blinding him. And I have stood there myself in that Texas sun, and I know, first-hand, that it is glaring. But, with so much light entering his eyes that it called for a remedy, how could he blacken out his whole head just by doing what he's doing? He couldn't. THEY blackened out his face. And by they, I mean Kennedy's killers. I believe it was a team set up by Dino Brugioni of the CIA Photo Interpretation Center, which was a euphemism.  

Then, Savastano posted this collage of Doorman, Lovelady, and Oswald.

First, be aware that the middle photo is Billy Lovelady, but it's from 1967, not 1963, and it was taken in color by Robert Jackson. And the image of Doorman on the left is over contrasted. But, even with all that contrast, it doesn't look the same as Lovelady's shirt. It isn't neatly and uniformly checkered. Below, I used the scan of Doorman by Dennis Cimino because it's the best there is. And I used the Jackson photo of Lovelady the way he took it, in color.

The fact is that Oswald's shirt, which was Russian, was very thin material that reflected sunlight. So, the contrast is due to the distortion of the enlargement and to light reflection. Doorman's shirt is NOT plaid. It has no neat, uniform, recurring boxes on it, as you see on Lovelady's shirt. And just because Lovelady posed in that shirt for that photo doesn't mean that he wore it on 11/22/63. And notice that the upper right side of Doorman's shirt (on our left) shows no contrast at all. I have circled it. But, Lovelady's shirt had pattern all the way up to and including the collars. The flashy plaid pattern occurs throughout.

That photo of Lovelady in the center was taken for the NBC Kennedy assassination Special in 1967. They were going to include a large segment on Doorman, including an interview of Lovelady. They paid him to come down to Dallas from Colorado to do it. They shot it, but, they never used it. It got cut from their 2 hour program. Why? Because they realized that Lovelady was a mess, that he was such a terrible liar that putting him on camera would do more harm than good. And the same thing happened in 1978 with the HSCA. They could have subpoenaed him to come to Washington, but they didn't. They talked to him in advance, and they knew, from that, he could never perform adequately, that he had no ability to lie convincingly. How significant is it that they didn't subpoena Lovelady to testify? Extremely significant. And then, he died of a heart attack at the tender age of 41 in January 1979 right when the HSCA Final Report was coming out? Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, they killed him.

Savastano only posted one image, a collage of Doorman, Lovelady, and Oswald, that is fraudulent. But, it's not just fraudulent in what he did to it. The Altgens photo itself is fraudulent.

The black man in the lower left wasn't there. He was a real man, Carl Jones, and he was close to that spot, but he was out of view to Altgens and facing the other way. The frame below by NBC photographer Dave Wiegman was taken almost simultaneous with the Altgens photo. 

You can see that Carl wasn't that close to Oswald. It only looks that way in the Altgens photo because they faked it. Carl was completely out of view to Altgens because of the angle from which Altgens shot. In fact, Oswald's right shoulder was partially out of view to Altgens for the same reason: parallax. But, they put the image of the black man into the Altgens photo because the bottom of Oswald's shirt was torn and tattered, and they were afraid that would give him away. So, they covered up the bottom of his shirt with the black guy. And they also wanted to cover up the fact that Oswald was clasping his hands in front in the doorway, which was a habit of his. We have quite a few images of him doing that that weekend. So, that would have given him away too. Lovelady didn't do that. Lovelady clasped his hands behind his back, not in front like Oswald.

So, covering up Oswald's self-defining front hand-clasp in the doorway is what they needed the image of Carl Jones for. 

But then, they got carried away. They decided to get rid of his whole arm by turning it into Carl's arm. Look at it again:

Can you see what appears to be a raised arm with a hand waving? I circled it.

So, that's supposed to be the rolled up sleeve of Carl Jones, and his forearm and hand. He's supposed to be waving at someone. It's very crude, I know, and it isn't even anatomically correct. He couldn't turn his hand like that if he wanted to. It's laughable what those buffoons did. 

And, I can tell you where they got that image of Carl. It was taken about 3 pm when employees were allowed to go home. It was taken by Congressman Phil Willis.

That looks exactly the same as the image of the black man in the Altgens photo because it is the same image.

And if you are wondering if Altgens and Willis could have captured the same image, the answer is no, since they were on opposite sides of the Plaza.

I consider guys like Savastano accessories after the fact in the murder of President Kennedy. But, as shills go, he's a bit more sophisticated than most. Still, in his sophisticated way, he is appealing to people's intellectual weakness. Oswald was the Doorway Man, and all the evidence supports it. It is as certain as Christ on the Cross.

Here is the link to Savastano's hit-piece against me:

https://www.tpaak.com/tpaak-blog/2014/1/2/while-assassination-conspiracy-is-feasible-it-assigns-oswald-some-guilt?fbclid=IwY2xjawFqoL9leHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHSCzbNy_BJieHRx9MnJiJzUj7P3SoeGsdKHx4JC9PDmeq6YNG6AVKHin9w_aem_cu6tv0TI5JHxbnu6y4ROzw

 You realize that a photograph is the rendering of a 3-dimensional space on a 2-dimensional surface, and the way depth gets registered is with elevation. Something that is deeper in the photo appears higher.

Now, because the Stemmons freeway sign was perpendicular to the road, the south side of the sign was deeper than the north side, and therefore the south side was higher than the north side. And that means that the right side of the sign was higher than the left side, and therefore, the top of the sign registers as a diagonal line.

Now, look at this photo, starting with the center of it. Look at my sign. First, I realize that it was smaller than the real sign, but that was a matter of practicality; and it was still arduous to get it there. But notice the diagonal line at the top, in which the right side is higher than the left side. That's because the sign was perpendicular to the road.

But now, look on the left at the sign in the FBI reenactment, and you'll see that it is perfectly square, that it squarely fits into the bottom right corner of the photo with no depth differential at all.

Then, on the right, you can see Zapruder on his pedestal, shooting the top of Dealey Plaza (indicated by the line) and how it was in relation to the sign, which you can see.

And notice that in my photo, I was no longer shooting the intersection. You can't see the corner. You can't see Houston Street. I had to go down the hill some to visualize the sign.

What this means is that, as in the Zapruder film, the sign in the FBI reenactment was fake. The laws of Physics and Optics did not get cancelled for that reenactment.

And to my detractors who are still going to dispute this, and I know they will, let's meet in Dealey Plaza and recreate it together. We'll each make sure the other doesn't cheat. We'll each be watchdog to the other. And then, with the proper sign in the right location and angle, and with Zapruder on his pedestal shooting, we'll recreate the Zapruder film and see when the sign comes in, and how it comes in.

And if, to my surprise, my adversaries can recreate the Zapruder film with the sign looking as it does in the film, and without cheating, I will publicly admit it. The truth is all I care about.

Wouldn't that be better than just arguing about it? And isn't it important enough to do it?

So, who is willing to meet me in Dallas and do this, for the sake of JFK truth?

On the left is the back of the freeway sign from the FBI reenactment. On the right is the back of it from the Zapruder film. On the left, the post seems to be cubical in shape, but on the right, it looks cylindrical to me. It doesn't have sharp, square edges like the other. Furthermore, the Zapruder post has two bolts going through it, but the post in the reenactment is clean. It has no visible fasteners. Frankly, I don't know how the sign is fastened to it. What explains these differences?

 

This is the Willis photo which shows us Zapruder on his pedestal in relation to the freeway sign. At the time, JFK was down the hill a ways, and Zapruder had turned with him because he was tracking him. But, just imagine that it was at the beginning when Zapruder was pointing his camera at the top of Dealey Plaza, shooting the start of the Zapruder film.

I have drawn a white ling to represent the center of his field of view. Now remember that that field of view is shaped like a cone. and it involves an angle of view that is constant. So, from that pedestal, when shooting the top of Dealey Plaza, as we see it at the start of the Zapruder film, if he had captured that freeway sign, even a little, it would have comprised an angle that is represented by the second white line that goes through the sign. And that line would have to continue all the way to the top,. Imagine how wide it would be when it got there. Yet, Zapruder's field was pretty narrow.

I'm also attaching Z-88 which captured some of the sign. Notice how narrow the camera field is. It consists of the street and the sidewalk, and that's about it. So, how could he have captured the sign? He wouldn't have. And he didn't. And I didn't either when I went there and tried it with a sign in place.

But, here is something that I think is universal: Without knowing a thing about physics, intuitively, just from our experience of taking photos all our lives, we know that standing on that pedestal and shooting the top of Dealey Plaza, he was not going to capture that sign, that his camera field could not have been that wide so close to his camera when his area of interest was so far away. No way was that sign going to get in the way of his shooting when he was starting out. He would have had to turn quite a bit before it would intrude on his image. And I proved it in Dealey Plaza.

Many people don't realize that there is a hierarchy when it comes to evidence- that some evidence trumps other evidence. In the case of Doorman, it's the photographic evidence that is supreme. And it says that Doorman was Oswald. 

It's not just the likeness of the man to Oswald, it's the likeness of their clothes. For Doorman to be Lovelady, he would have had to not only look like Oswald, but be dressed like him. And the fact is that the likeness of the man and the clothing to Oswald is so great, it makes it impossible for him not to be Oswald. You just can't have this much likeness between two unrelated men.   

And, you shouldn't fall for distracting noise. The likeness of the Doorman's hairline to that of Young Lovelady from 1957 is a sign of malfeasance. You know how variable hair is. It is constantly growing and being cut. It is being combed and styled and treated and slept on and affected by weather. So, what are the chances that someone's hair would look exactly the same over a 6 year time span? The same length, the same cut, the same degree of recession, etc. Yet, the hair of Doorman and Young Lovelady is EXACTLY the same, and it tells us that they replaced Doorman's "crown" with that of Young Lovelady. So, this wasn't about people making a mistake. It was about them deliberately altering and falsifying evidence and obstructing justice in knowingly advancing the lie that Doorman was Lovelady.

The fact is that EVERY image of Billy Lovelady was corrupted, and the only one that is uncorrupted is the one taken by Mark Lane, which is the one on the right below. All the other images of Lovelady came from Kennedy's killers. 

And when you compare the one authentic image of Billy Lovelady to Doorman, you realize that no way can they be the same man. It is the two internal images in this collage that show the same man wearing the same clothes. And the realization of that is final. Nothing can challenge it. Nothing can refute it. You are left realizing that our own government killed Kennedy. And they've been killing him every day ever since with their lies. Just as Laura was the face in the misty light, Lee Harvey Oswald was the man standing in the doorway, and that is as certain as Christ on the Cross. 

I have the November 29, 1963 LIFE magazine with frames from the Zapruder film. It came out exactly a week after the assassination and 6 days after LIFE took possession of the film from Zapruder. 

The frames they published were black and white, even though the Zapruder film was in color. And they are also very blurry, more so than the film. I am going to discuss what they published and what they didn't publish, and the latter will surprise you.  

So, their spread started with the lone motorcycle cop, and then it cut to the limo, just as it does today.  And it features the sign that we know so well. But, realize how the Zapruder film is divided and the story it tells. It's divided into two parts: before the sign and after the sign, and the story it tells is that JFK was OK until he disappeared behind the scene. Then, behind the sign, he was shot in ways we can't see, and he emerges from behind the sign stricken. 

So, that was their story, and to tell it, they quit showing JFK at frame 166. This is the last you see of him until he emerges from behind the freeway sign. I realize it is very blurry. 

Here it is from the Costella frame.

I cut that frame because they cut their frame. I cut it to match what they did. They cut it right behind JFK, and so did I. Notice that Jackie is not looking at JFK. Rather, she is working her side of the street, like a good political wife. 

So, why didn't they show any more of him unstricken? The answer is that there was no more of him unstricken. He was shot in the back right after that, and no doubt it showed. So, they weren't going to feature it. Here, for example, is frame 200. Notice that Jackie is turned and looking at JFK now, and that's because she knows that something is wrong. And he seems to be covering his face with his hand.  He didn't do that. That isn't a hand. It is paint. 

But, that is doctoring that came later. I can only guess how it originally looked. I'm sure it took years to get the Zapruder film in the shape it is today. 

So, the next thing they showed of him in LIFE magazine was him emerging from behind the sign. You see an array of frames that pretty much capture the narrative that we are familiar with, but you don't see the spectators. You don't see Babushka Lady or Charles Brehm and his son or Jean Hill and Mary Moorman. So, they omitted all those frames. Why? Well, they occur when Zapruder, apparently, failed at centering the Kennedys. This is frame 291.

 Do you think Zapruder screwed up? I don't think so. I have no reason to think he would have had any difficulty centering them at that point, since he did so before and afterwards. I know that a lot of doctoring was done to Mary Moorman. They used a still image of her and repeated it. Here is 312, in which the Kennedys have passed her, yet she is still posing to shoot. 

Notice that she is not pointing her camera at them; she's pointing it straight ahead. It's a still image. They had huge problems with Mary Moorman, and as I have been saying for years, they wound up ditching her photo and replacing it with one taken by Babushka Lady. Apparently, Mary captured something that they did not want us to see. And they eventually made it that Mary didn't take her photo until after the fatal head shot. Mary said, at the time and all along, that she took her photo at the time of the first shot, but they changed it to her not taking it until after the last shot. 

I spent over a year studying the Moorman photo and her whole saga, and I am as sure as ever that she did not take it. Here is one of my posts about it, if you're interested. 

https://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2021/08/this-rendering-of-moorman-photo-shows.html

But, moving on, LIFE magazine omitted 313, when his head exploded from the fatal head  shot. And they didn't mention the fatal head shot. They made it that he was shot behind the sign, and that was it. They didn't say he was shot again. They just said that he collapsed into Jackie, and they showed a frame of it. I think it was 321. 

On the right, they actually painted in eyes on Jackie. If you look closely, you'll see that she has these dark round eyes that are scary.

That does not occur in the film, so they must have done it with paint. And, notice how they whitened his face and the front of his head. It's stark white, isn't it? They didn't want  to admit that he was shot. They just said: "The President collapses on his wife's shoulder." They did not state or imply that he was shot. and I understand why. It was a shot taken from the front, slightly in front. Right and front. And the story was going to be that all the shots came from the rear, from the 6th floor window. So, that's why they didn't want to admit that he was shot there. 

Eventually, they changed their minds and decided to highlight the fatal head shot. But, they did not include it in the 11/29 LIFE. 

The final section shows a lot of frames of Jackie crawling on the back hood of the limo. You don't see Clint Hill until he's climbing up. In the film, you see him running and overtaking the moving limo. But, of course, it was sped up. The limo was either stopped completely or going no more than 2 or 3 miles per hour. 

So, the bottom line is that they carefully avoided showing JFK getting shot in the back high on the hill, but that is what happened. And they avoided showing the fatal head shot or including it in the narrative. They left out all the familiar spectators on the south side of Elm. And they avoided showing Clint Hill running and catching up with the limo.