Just yesterday, Randy Guntner commented that above it looks like his high school prom picture. He does look young. I'd say no more than 20 years old, which would make it 1957.
So, why would they use a picture from 1957 when they had the FBI pictures which were from Feb 1964, just 3 months after the assassination?
What's worse is that they actually used this picture flipped- right to left flipped, the mirror image of it.
And why didn't this picture surface at the time of the assassination? It seems highly unlikely that they dug it up in the late 1970s if they didn't have it in the early 1960s. Why would they have even looked for it?
And did Lovelady have a birth mark at the top of his forehead or is that an artifact? If it's an artifact, how? And if it was real, when did he have it removed?
Here is the flipped version that the HSCA used and published.
So, why did they use a flipped version? And please, nobody say it was an accident.
They also published it correctly in a collage with another image of Lovelady.
That guy on the right is supposed to be Lovelady? He doesn't look remotely like him. Here is the Mark Lane image of Lovelady from the winter of 1964.
I presume that all CTs are willing to accept the authenticity of this image. A CT wouldn't accuse Mark Lane of faking an image of Lovelady, right? Look at his hair.
The image of FBI Lovelady (above right) and that of Mark Lane Lovelady below were taken at about the same time. So, why the discrepancy in hair coverage? And it's quite a discrepancy. FBI Lovelady still has good thick coverage on top while Mark Lane Lovelady is mostly bald on top.
But, getting back to our original question, why did the HSCA completely omit the image of FBI Lovelady? They bypassed that for an image of him that went back to 1957 which was never published by the Warren Commission? Something is rotten in Denmark.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.