Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

I was asked on FB what I thought of the H & L theory.

After some to-and-froing, I asked what the best piece of evidence was for the theory.

The answer came back in a flash -- Jack white's "all the faces of Oswald" montage. I was then asked if I thought all those pictures were of the same person.

My response to that question has never changed. The only one I have a problem with is this one:



Since it is clearly not Oswald -- in either incarnation of Lee or "Harvey", it has to be "Oswald" - to include this photo as evidence of a CIA doppelganger is surely an act meant to convey that 3 such identities existed.

My question back was pretty straight forward. Where did this photo come from and who was it who first claimed it was supposed to be LHO?

I never got an answer. As generally happens when debating L & H theory, a genuine inquiry was met with a change in subject.

Can anyone here shed any light on the background of this photo? 

Oh, and the person also pointed out that the background behind the head is "faked". What the hell is that about?

This doesn't look like Oswald, but if it is, he has a swollen, puffy looking face. Did LHO have any disorders that would cause his face to swell? Just wondering.

Actually, this looks more like the guy in Mexico City who was pretending to be Oswald.

Either that or maybe Alex Karas' brother.

Although I am not a photo "expert" I have had many years experience - including four years employed as a graphic designer - with photo modification and alteration.

This thing is probably someone's poorly conceived attempt at humor.



There also appears to be a doppelganger at the ear on the left, orphan lines through both eyes and on his upper lip.

Really, there are too many problems with the image(s) layered here to attempt cogent analysis.

terlin wrote:Really, there are too many problems with the image(s) layered here to attempt cogent analysis.

Too many problems? The H&L aficionado simply says "What careth I; the image supporteth our faith. Doth thou understandeth this?"

Oops!

Sorry... I didn't mean to mess with... well, FAITH!!!

btw, nice halo, Stan  

greg parker wrote:I was asked on FB what I thought of the H & L theory.

After some to-and-froing, I asked what the best piece of evidence was for the theory.

The answer came back in a flash -- Jack white's "all the faces of Oswald" montage. I was then asked if I thought all those pictures were of the same person.

My response to that question has never changed. The only one I have a problem with is this one:



Since it is clearly not Oswald -- in either incarnation of Lee or "Harvey", it has to be "Oswald" - to include this photo as evidence of a CIA doppelganger is surely an act meant to convey that 3 such identities existed.

My question back was pretty straight forward. Where did this photo come from and who was it who first claimed it was supposed to be LHO?

I never got an answer. As generally happens when debating L & H theory, a genuine inquiry was met with a change in subject.

Can anyone here shed any light on the background of this photo? 

Oh, and the person also pointed out that the background behind the head is "faked". What the hell is that about?

I am no photographic expert and to comment on the authenticity of the photo I don't feel I need to be to state unequivocally that this is a fake. The square blank background behind his head tells me it was crudely cropped from another photo on to the body. It is pretty obvious to me.

Even behind that silly square thing, the construction of the windows themselves seems a little odd. I've never quite seen anything like it before.

Has anyone else?

Even this looks like its been faked onto the newspaper clipping. Guess where it came from?
http://harveyandlee.net/Marines/Marines.html

If you look closely at the bottom border you can see it has been superimposed over the original inserted photo. Very amateurish if you ask me.

Paul Klein wrote:I am no photographic expert and to comment on the authenticity of the photo I don't feel I need to be to state unequivocally that this is a fake. The square blank background behind his head tells me it was crudely cropped from another photo on to the body. It is pretty obvious to me.

Sure looks like a fake to me.

Thank you Paul. Looks like fraud to me by the manufacturers of the most ludicrous theory out there. 

Here is a similar pic taken at Atsugi. Note the windows in the background building:


Although this is also allegedly Oswald... I couldn't say for certain myself.

Paul Klein wrote:Even this looks like its been faked onto the newspaper clipping. Guess where it came from?
http://harveyandlee.net/Marines/Marines.html

If you look closely at the bottom border you can see it has been superimposed over the original inserted photo. Very amateurish if you ask me.

Yes, Paul, it IS amateurish. A badly faked photo inserted very poorly into the newspaper image. It is almost as if someone was planting this evidence to make the H&L crowd look like idiots. Yeah, I know, it's not hard thing to do.

Still, I wonder who might have the motive for such shenanigans.

I assume it was before Stan's Page Fodder days...? Yes, I know Stan does much better work but if he were trying to hook a fool(s)?

Also, on the linked page, is it just me or are the photos of Lee almost always grainy and blurred while the photos of Harvey are sharp as a tack? (Or is it the other way around?) And the photo of the Marguerite imposter looks just like Marguerite. How is this any evidence of a doppelganger? I mean, as if there were any real evidence for any of this crap!!

greg parker wrote:Thank you Paul. Looks like fraud to me by the manufacturers of the most ludicrous theory out there. 

Here is a similar pic taken at Atsugi. Note the windows in the background building:


Although this is also allegedly Oswald... I couldn't say for certain myself.

Yes, the windows appear similar in relationship to the ones in the faked shot, except mirrored left-to-right it seems.

Here is the photo used by the Star Telegram

 
http://cdm16084.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p16084coll6/id/26/rec/21

I am not sure about the windows on either of the photos, Greg and Terry. The Atsugi photo on first glance seemed to me to have a fake head imposed on the body. The neck appears too long. I am sure I've seen that head before on another photo of Oswald but I am not 100% sure on it or if its just my suspicion. Its a much better job (if it is fake) than the other one.

I'll say it again. Some aspects of the JFK research community has made me think twice about everything I read or see about this case. My patience is wearing thin and I guess  that might be the whole point of it all. I considered the Armstrong 2 Oswald theory for a short while and now I feel like a fucking idiot about it. Not that I ever subscribed to it but there were elements of the book that I took as facts. Facts that I didn't bother to check on. I was going to bring up some of the stuff Armstrong said on a recent thread about the Imperial Reflex camera but I am too scared to do it now. This has been a learning experience for me but I am not sure how much more bullshit I can take.

greg parker wrote:Here is the photo used by the Star Telegram

 
http://cdm16084.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p16084coll6/id/26/rec/21

Unfuckingbelievable!!!

What a cunt Armstrong is.

Good work, Greg.

Paul Klein wrote:

greg parker wrote:Here is the photo used by the Star Telegram

 
http://cdm16084.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p16084coll6/id/26/rec/21

Unfuckingbelievable!!!

What a cunt Armstrong is.

Good work, Greg.

This is from a story about his RETURN.

The faked-up photo of this photo was put over the top of a different photo used in a story about his DEFECTION.

So all in all, it's actually worse than it looks.

greg parker wrote:

Paul Klein wrote:

greg parker wrote:Here is the photo used by the Star Telegram

 
http://cdm16084.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p16084coll6/id/26/rec/21

Unfuckingbelievable!!!

What a cunt Armstrong is.

Good work, Greg.

This is from a story about his RETURN.

The faked-up photo of this photo was put over the top of a different photo used in a story about his DEFECTION.

I am betting that its the same photo they originally used on his defection.

Actually, Paul, the site has that article but only has a photo of Robert Oswald.

http://cdm16084.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p16084coll6/id/28/rec/1

terlin wrote:Actually, Paul, the site has that article but only has a photo of Robert Oswald.

http://cdm16084.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p16084coll6/id/28/rec/1

Is it the same defection article, Terry? Its hard to tell cause the BS photo article is clipped. I don't think its the same one mate. The titles seem to be different.
Who fucking knows anymore. 

I agree with Paul. I can't find is the story that appears with the superimposed fake photo.

Paul Klein wrote:I'll say it again. Some aspects of the JFK research community has made me think twice about everything I read or see about this case. My patience is wearing thin and I guess  that might be the whole point of it all. I considered the Armstrong 2 Oswald theory for a short while and now I feel like a fucking idiot about it. Not that I ever subscribed to it but there were elements of the book that I took as facts. Facts that I didn't bother to check on. I was going to bring up some of the stuff Armstrong said on a recent thread about the Imperial Reflex camera but I am too scared to do it now. This has been a learning experience for me but I am not sure how much more bullshit I can take.

Sometimes new leads and directions in a case - especially one as old as this one, though not quite "cold" - get people really excited. I am certain that a new "break" in the case would lead a researcher to a very big case of "wishful thinking" rather than being overly cautious about the evidence and its provenance.

That being said, a legitimate researcher will point out the evidence in support as well as opposing evidence and then tell the reader why he chose the direction he did. A really good researcher is completely transparent and lets the reader know the "other side" as well.

Fakers and frauds will find (or create) evidence as needed and not tell about the non-supportive evidences. Many people are misled for years until a whistleblower comes along and shows them for the frauds they are. And even after the unmasking, many of the faithful cling to the empty husk in the vain hopes that something, however small, can come along and resurrect the carcass. Perhaps its the Christians among the group but they somehow believe the resurrection-thingy extends to all sorts of things, not just gods.

As the JFK community has plenty of history, we are finding that history is littered with quite a few quacks (please, no offense intended to our web-footed friends) and fakers over the years. Many theories, cherished by many, are being revealed for what they are: more of the same old dis-/mis-information we have come to expect from the CIA.

There is nothing wrong in posting information you have about some aspect of the case but as long as you mention the provenance - as people around here do - its validity will be verified or challenged by others with more information on the subject.

That's what a research community does. EF or DeepForum might make you afraid to post something you believe (or question) but you should be afraid to do so here. If it is wrong - and you have not proclaimed loudly and stuck a sword in the ground, in your foot, or up your ass - people will politely tell you so and give you a link to the data.

Anyway, don't get upset. We've all bought into some pie-in-the-sky theory over the years.

(well, perhaps all of us except Lee and Greg)

greg parker wrote:I agree with Paul. I can't find is the story that appears with the superimposed fake photo.

Do you mean at a site other than the H&L group?


(taking me a long time to answer these things 'cause it keeps telling me to log in to preview the post, log in to send to post, log in to edit the post before sending...  can't this thing remember me from 30 seconds before?? Not the cookies... I already checked.)


Grrr 

terlin wrote:

greg parker wrote:I agree with Paul. I can't find is the story that appears with the superimposed fake photo.

Do you mean at a site other than the H&L group?


(taking me a long time to answer these things 'cause it keeps telling me to log in to preview the post, log in to send to post, log in to edit the post before sending...  can't this thing remember me from 30 seconds before?? Not the cookies... I already checked.)


Grrr 

Sorry... meant I can't find it at the Star Telegram archives.

Sorry you're having trouble. Could be a localized thing again which will eventually sort itself out... but if anyone else is having the same issue, let me know.