Here's an interesting question: If the staged, posed, primped, and propped photo of Lovelady taken by the FBI in February 1964 is so damn good, if it matches Doorman so damn well, then why didn't the HSCA want to use it? Why'd they go with the so-called Wedding photo of Lovelady instead?
They had the FBI photo. They could have used it. They could have given it to their anthropologists to use. But, they didn't. They went with the so-called Wedding photo. That's the the horse they backed. That was their dog in the fight. And they referred to it, the Wedding photo, as being "close in time to the assassination". But, the year they assigned to it was 1959, which was 4 years before the assassination. I don't believe that year is correct, and they did not substantiate it. I think it was more likely 1957- or even earlier. But, how could 1959 be considered "close in time to the assassination" when the FBI photo was taken only 3 months from the assassination? Isn't 3 months a lot closer in time than 4 years?
So, again, the question is, why on Earth did the HSCA go with the Wedding photo of Lovelady and give it to their anthropologists to compare to Oswald and Doorman in lieu of the FBI photo?
Is it because they knew that, at the very least, they had an absolutely perfect correlation of the top of the heads, even though such a thing, since it involves hair, is practically impossible over a 6 or even 4 year time span?
Or was it something about the FBI photo that they didn't like? After all, when they published it small they first darkened it in shadow and quite a bit. See the lower right below.
I don't know, but what I do know is that the HSCA made the conscious decision to go with the Wedding photo, to make that their centerpiece photo of Lovelady, not the FBI photo. That's the one they gave to their anthropologists. And, they must have had their reasons for doing that.
But, one thing is for sure: the FBI photo does not correlate well to Doorman. And that is spelled out right here: