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

Denis Morrissette's 1968 image of James Bookhout has surfaced, but it is bogus; it is definitely not James Bookhout. 

Actually, it's two images, and one is from  a newspaper clipping. I found the source. It's from the Marshall News Messenger and the date was September 24, 1968.  But, we'll look at the other image first, which is from a DPD photo.   

I said from the start that I would vet the image by comparing it to the known images of Bookhout, which are limited to his yearbook photos, including the one on the left. I do not have a source for the disputed image on the right. 

That is not the same man. There is no reason to think so. But, I'll point out that if it was the same man, then it proves that the drag queen eyebrows on the left are fake because obviously the man on the right doesn't have them. And in reality, nobody does. But notice that Young Bookhout on the left had very puffy cheeks. And he was only 23 years old there. That was his tendency, and when you have that tendency, it tends to increase over time. The man on the right has a very gaunt face. He doesn't look like he ever had puffy cheeks. The contrast is extreme. 

They have very different ears. Look:

Why on the right is their whiteness at the top of the ear? I think it is very likely due to tampering. But regardless, they are not the same ear. 

Yes, I think they tampered with it, but there is no reason to think that ear is this ear:

They are different ears. Look at the thick helix on the '63 image. And why does it look white? I suspect they tampered with it, trying to match the other.  If you are going to say that those two are the same ears, then you might as well say that all ears are the same ears. 

I do think that is tampered with on the right, and regardless, the ears are a non-confirmation. 

Now, the hairlines look very similar, but that's not good. The image on the left was from 1937 when Bookhout was only 23 years old. And as you can see, he was already manifesting very visible hairline recession. His is no boyish hairline.

So, when did the process start? At what age did he start losing hair? You can't tell me that he went through his entire childhood with a hairline like that. No child does. I think we can safely assume he had a normal youthful hairline in childhood. So, when did it start heading back? We don't know, but let's say at age 20. It's arbitrary, but it's reasonable. That would mean that he went from his full hairline of childhood to what we see above in 3 years.  And it's pretty reasonable because notice how much it advanced in 2 years from 1935 to 1937?

That's pretty fast progression, in my opinion. If he continued losing hair at that pace, he'd be bald by the time he was 49. But, the other photo shows about the same hairline. So, we would have to believe that Bookhout experienced rather rapid recession in his early 20s, and then it stopped, and his hairline remained stable for the next 31 years. 

And the likelihood of that is extremely remote. 

And let's look closely at the new image.

Can you se that that front piece is fake? That it was added in? And why would Bookhout keep that hair so short? The hair behind it is longer. It would be OK if it was the other way around. But, who is going to keep the hair in back long and then crew the most exposed part front and center? That is ridiculous. But you see, when you're adding fake hair, you always want to keep it short because if you start adding strands, it looks fake. They did it the same way with Lovelady in the FBI photos. 

Let's move on to the other image, from the newspaper. 

Does everyone agree that those ears are extremely different? The man on the right had an extremely long lobule, which is the fleshy part where the piercings are done. Again, if you are going to say that those are the same ear, then it means that you just equate all ears. 

Now, I want to show you what they did to the noses in both those photos. I think it's unlikely for their noses to be the way they appear. Here's the first, and it's very much a button nose, meaning short and uplifted. 

Early in life is when people may have noses like that.  

The nose is constantly changing throughout life. It is also constantly growing throughout life. It gets bigger and bigger over time. And, it also falls victim to gravity, where the tip tends to drop. It is very, very, very unlikely for a man in his 50s to have a nose like this guy appears to have. It's too short. It's too uplifted. Too much ski-slope. And frankly, too immature. 

How could Bookhout have a bigger nose at age 23 than he had at age 54?

They are obviously not the same nose, and it is an extremely unusual nose for a mature Caucasian man on the right anyway. It's probably more tampering. I don't know what they were shooting for, but they went too far. Then, the other image similarly shows a button nose.

Note that that is a better version of the image than the one my enemies are frolicking about. I found it independently of them. so, the nose looks short and button-like again. I don't know what could be casting shadow on his nose, as we see there. That blackness is suspicious. But regardless, he has a smaller nose than Bookhout had at age 23, which is ridiculous. The nose grows; it doesn't shrink.

They are definitely not the same nose, not even close. And again, I think it's very unusual for a Caucasian man to have such a short, shallow nose as we see on the right and below.

So, is it an altered image? I suspect that it is. And look how small and narrow his tie is. Compare it to the guy next to him.

How could it possibly be that small of a knot? And how could the width of the tie at the top be so narrow and threadlike? It is ridiculous.

Here is the newspaper clipping:

Here is a collage of that figure alongside the only son of James Bookhout, Jim Bookhout.

Does that look like father and son to you? Maybe if he was adopted. 

And here is the DPD photo. Just suddenly surfaced after 53 years, eh? Where was it? Who had it? The Sixth Floor Museum? The person who produced it needs to explain the derivation of it. 

In case it is necessary for me to say this, I categorically reject that those two images are of FBI Agent James Bookhout. What I need to find out is whether it's a case of mistaken identification by the newspaper, which happens sometimes OR if it is an elaborate photographic fraud. I am strongly inclined towards the latter considering the unlikelihood of the nose being the way it appears and also the tie. And the hairpiece they gave the guy in the DPD photo proves fraud there. This is more JFK photographic flim-flam. Remember: they are NEVER finished altering JFK assassination photos. It is 2017, and they are still doing it.