It explains why the image on the left is so difficult to enlarge, since it's smaller and more distant to begin with. Notice, by the way, the box of cigarettes in Lovelady's pocket. Notice how it really fills it up and squares it off. So, since smoking is an entrenched habit it- one of the strongest addictions known to Man- isn't it likely that Lovelady had such a box in his pocket on 11/22/63? So, why don't we see such a bulge in the shirt pocket of Gorilla Lovelady outside the TSBD?
Of course, he's not really Lovelady, but the point is that they forgot to dress him up with a box of cigarettes. However, amazingly, they showed him smoking at the time.
So, where did "Lovelady" get the cigarette from? But, I digress. Let's go back to the FBI photos.
So, using the above photos, let's try enlarging the one on the left and comparing it to the one in the middle. After all, that's the same guy in the same light with the same angle of view. For clarity of discussion, I am going to refer to Lovelady on the left as Lovelady with hands behind back.
Wow! That is strange, the disparity between them. Same guy, same angle, same time, same place, but a very different face. First, note that on the right you see a long, relatively narrow face, but on the left, his face looks smaller and more compact. But, a very big difference is their noses. On the right, we get the impression of a huge nasal tip cartilage. but not on the left. The nose on the left is very weird because there is no tapering up to the bridge. The bridge of his nose is just as wide as the tip of his nose including the flare of his nostrils. But, his nostrils don't flare. That is really weird, and I don't know if I have ever seen it before. Usually, the nose is triangular in shape.
So, the nose tends to be narrow at the top (the bridge) and wide at the bottom to accommodate the nostrils, so the guy can breathe. So, what is going on with Lovelady's nostrils in this picture? They have got to be the smallest, most pinched nostrils in the history of Man.
Was Lovelady really like it? Let's look at his Groden photo from 1976.
That looks like a normal nose with some nostril flare.
On the left, I just don't know if it's possible for someone to have nostrils that small and narrow and pinched off and still be able to breathe. I have to reject it and say that it is a false and manipulated image. But, let's go back to these two.
The hair looks similar, but it definitely seems thicker on the left. It definitely looks more sparse on the right. What about the eyes?
Notice on the right how swollen and puffy his eyes look and the huge span in the eyelid area. You don't see that on the left. I didn't go as big with him in order to minimize distortion. But, that's a huge difference in their eyes. Now look on the left at his left ear, so the one near the center of the collage. Why is it so small and obscured? It's pretty much a straight-on shot, right? It's not as though he's got his head turned. And why on both of them is the other ear, the right ear, so low? Unless you had your head substantially tilted, shouldn't the ears be at the same level?
He's not tilting his head, is he? So, why is his right ear so much lower than his left?
The point is that the FBI photos of Billy Lovelady are HIGHLY manipulated, worked on, connived images which are not to be trusted at all. It's interesting that when the HSCA came along, they didn't want to go with the FBI images. They went this image below, which they actually had the audacity to claim was taken "close to the time of the assassination" when it was actually from a different decade.
They pegged that photo as "1959" but without substantiating it. I don't accept that date. I think 1957 is more reasonable, considering how young he looks. But, even though I reject 1959, why would someone prefer to use a photo that was from 4 years before the event when they could use one from just 3 months after the event? Isn't 3 months a shorter lapse of time than 4 years? They gave this so-called Wedding photo to the anthropologists to take their anthropometric measurements and compare to Oswald and Doorman. But, why this one and not one of the FBI photos?
I think it was because they didn't want to open up that can of worms.
This is page 288 of the HSCA Final Report, which is a collage of images of Lovelady, including the FBI photo. But look! They used the shaded version.
So, that's where that one came from. The HSCA did it. They added shadow in order to soften his face.
So, that's the ticket. The HSCA added all that shadow to the FBI photo. Leastways, you can't deny that they PUBLISHED it that way. So, that's it. They darkened it to soften his features and to prevent us from getting a good look at that FBI photo. But, maybe it was Robert Groden himself who did it. After all, it says:
"Photographic evidence evaluated in Robert Groden's shirt analysis."
So maybe Robert Groden, himself, personally did it, and for the reasons I gave above.
Wow, this has really been a breakthrough. For years, I wondered why the Hard and Soft versions of the FBI photo exist. I wondered which one came first, and which one was sent to the Warren Commission. Now I know: it was the hard one. The softening came later during the HSCA. I'm going to have to go big with this.