Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

First topic message reminder :

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?

These may have longish loading times depending upon your internet connection so if they don't appear straight away then just wait a minute or two:

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/utils/getfile/collection/po-arm/id/34433/filename/print/page/download

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/utils/getfile/collection/po-arm/id/30577/filename/print/page/download

Armstrong has five copies of the same article in one of his files each one having its brightness boosted higher than the one previous.

Hello Hello wrote:

Great find, Lee. Armstrong should have declared his purposes for inserting a brighter image over the original article on his website for this image that is there:

Paul Klein wrote:

Hello Hello wrote:

Great find, Lee. Armstrong should have declared his purposes for inserting a brighter image over the original article on his website for this image that is there:

I still don't know what the fuck he was up to inserting this over the original.  The photo he used has now been used by followers of his theory to force H&L down saner people's throats.

I still want to know who made this fucked up photo.  Why they made this photo.  How they made this photo.  And what purpose do they think it served by placing it over the actual photo in the article from November 1, 1959?

Hello Hello wrote:

I still don't know what the fuck he was up to inserting this over the original.  The photo he used has now been used by followers of his theory to force H&L down saner people's throats.

I still want to know who made this fucked up photo.  Why they made this photo.  How they made this photo.  And what purpose do they think it served by placing it over the actual photo in the article from November 1, 1959?

Was there any copy of the pasted photo in the files? Or any idea where the faked image first appeared?

Somebody, somewhere has to be the "first poster".

Meanwhile, again, excellent work, Lee!

This is from one of Armstrong's folders.  The ghosting you see in the background is on the document.  This is the best quality version of this mangled photo of some waxy Oswald chimera I have seen so far in the files of JA:



I have yet to find a copy of it in situ on the Star-Telegram article but will keep looking.

Edit: Another version with a slight sepia tone to parts of the image:

terlin wrote:

Hello Hello wrote:

I still don't know what the fuck he was up to inserting this over the original.  The photo he used has now been used by followers of his theory to force H&L down saner people's throats.

I still want to know who made this fucked up photo.  Why they made this photo.  How they made this photo.  And what purpose do they think it served by placing it over the actual photo in the article from November 1, 1959?

Was there any copy of the pasted photo in the files? Or any idea where the faked image first appeared?

Somebody, somewhere has to be the "first poster".

Meanwhile, again, excellent work, Lee!

I think I might owe Mr Armstrong an apology. The pasted photo on the article only appears on this website that has been created by a Jim Hargrove. http://harveyandlee.net/
To make matters even more embarrassing for myself, I have a copy of Harvey & Lee which I have just located and not only was the original 1959 Star Telegram article contained within   , but also the fucked up photo on its own and not pasted on to the article.
It appears to me that Jim Hargrove is the culprit of this misdemeanor and not Armstrong. 

Okay, the faked Star-Telegram article does appear in Armstrong's files alongside the original genuine article:

Paul Klein wrote:

terlin wrote:

Hello Hello wrote:

I still don't know what the fuck he was up to inserting this over the original.  The photo he used has now been used by followers of his theory to force H&L down saner people's throats.

I still want to know who made this fucked up photo.  Why they made this photo.  How they made this photo.  And what purpose do they think it served by placing it over the actual photo in the article from November 1, 1959?

Was there any copy of the pasted photo in the files? Or any idea where the faked image first appeared?

Somebody, somewhere has to be the "first poster".

Meanwhile, again, excellent work, Lee!

I think I might owe Mr Armstrong an apology. The pasted photo on the article only appears on this website that has been created by a Jim Hargrove. http://harveyandlee.net/
To make matters even more embarrassing for myself, I have a copy of Harvey & Lee which I have just located and not only was the original 1959 Star Telegram article contained within  :oops: , but also the fucked up photo on its own and not pasted on to the article.
It appears to me that Jim Hargrove is the culprit of this misdemeanor and not Armstrong. :oops:

You owe no one an apology, Paul.

The item appears in Armstrong's files - it's right there plonked right on top of the DFWST article.  Please see my post before this one.

Hello Hello wrote:Okay, the faked Star-Telegram article does appear in Armstrong's files alongside the original genuine article:

That is a fucking relief to me, Lee. My copy of Harvey & Lee doesn't contain the fake Star Telegram article.
I hate having to say I am sorry though I won't baulk from it if I have to.

Okay, things are going to get a little weirder now:



Earlier, I printed a letter that Armstrong sent to Jack Simon at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram asking for a copy of the original photo from the November 1, 1959 article on Oswald's defection, yet in the letter he claims that he is enclosing the photo which I assume would have been a xeroxed copy.

We all know the original photo contained in the November 1, 1959, article was this one:



So the typed caption portion of the photo at the top (scary eyes waxy head) is somewhat bizarre.  Not least because this is most certainly NOT Lee Oswald but also because this strange photograph was not published in the November 1, 1959, FWST article.

Try as I might I have not yet been able to track down a return letter from Jack Simon or AP if it was either one of them that sent this photo and accompanying caption to John Armstrong.

If there's one thing we know about JA, it's that he was a pack-rat when it came to his documents.

Still scratching my head...

Paul Klein wrote:

terlin wrote:

Hello Hello wrote:

I still don't know what the fuck he was up to inserting this over the original.  The photo he used has now been used by followers of his theory to force H&L down saner people's throats.

I still want to know who made this fucked up photo.  Why they made this photo.  How they made this photo.  And what purpose do they think it served by placing it over the actual photo in the article from November 1, 1959?

Was there any copy of the pasted photo in the files? Or any idea where the faked image first appeared?

Somebody, somewhere has to be the "first poster".

Meanwhile, again, excellent work, Lee!

I think I might owe Mr Armstrong an apology. The pasted photo on the article only appears on this website that has been created by a Jim Hargrove. http://harveyandlee.net/
To make matters even more embarrassing for myself, I have a copy of Harvey & Lee which I have just located and not only was the original 1959 Star Telegram article contained within   , but also the fucked up photo on its own and not pasted on to the article.
It appears to me that Jim Hargrove is the culprit of this misdemeanor and not Armstrong. 

Paul,

Everything Hargrove does on the website is in consultation with Armstrong. Even if that were not the case, Armstrong surely checks what is posted in the name of his theory. His silence is tacit approval.

greg parker wrote:

Paul Klein wrote:

terlin wrote:

Hello Hello wrote:

I still don't know what the fuck he was up to inserting this over the original.  The photo he used has now been used by followers of his theory to force H&L down saner people's throats.

I still want to know who made this fucked up photo.  Why they made this photo.  How they made this photo.  And what purpose do they think it served by placing it over the actual photo in the article from November 1, 1959?

Was there any copy of the pasted photo in the files? Or any idea where the faked image first appeared?

Somebody, somewhere has to be the "first poster".

Meanwhile, again, excellent work, Lee!

I think I might owe Mr Armstrong an apology. The pasted photo on the article only appears on this website that has been created by a Jim Hargrove. http://harveyandlee.net/
To make matters even more embarrassing for myself, I have a copy of Harvey & Lee which I have just located and not only was the original 1959 Star Telegram article contained within   , but also the fucked up photo on its own and not pasted on to the article.
It appears to me that Jim Hargrove is the culprit of this misdemeanor and not Armstrong. 

Paul,

Everything Hargrove does on the website is in consultation with Armstrong. Even if that were not the case, Armstrong surely checks what is posted in the name of his theory. His silence is tacit approval.

As Lee has mentioned, Greg, Armstrong has it as part of his files. Its not contained in my ebook of Harvey & Lee under the "Defection" pictures but the original STFW article is, as well as the fucked up photo on its own.
Why he substituted the fucked up photo for the original in the article without an explanation, or allowed it, is indefensible. It breeds deceit.
I fear there is more to come about all this but I am hanging up my boots on this thread and will merely spectate from here on. I am out of my league when it comes to this shit.
I still can't believe I had the original STFW article a foot away on a USB stick and never thought to check.  

Blow up:

Looks like something from a circus sideshow poster (Alive!).

Taking stock, what do know as facts?
 
That 

• LHO-1 was the photo in the original FWS-T story
  
• LHO-3 was pasted over the original photo and used by Armstrong and/or his supporters to bolster his theory
  

That's about all we can say with certainty.

What are further likely facts?

That 

• LHO-3 originated with Jack White
  

What are possible facts

That

• LHO-1 is Robert not Lee
  
• Robert is the source of LHO-1 and LHO-4
  
• One or more of Stan's collection on top of LHO-3, has been altered
  

What we still don't know

• Why LHO-3 was made
  

That's as far as I can wrap my head around it. If anyone has any additions/changes/disputes or queries, jump right in.

Awesome. I just signed on to see if somebody could summarize where we are here. Thanks.

To the Armstrong culties visiting here (you know who you are):
 
Why did Brother Armstrong use a different picture of Lee Harvey Oswald in his version of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram article?

Can you explain that?

greg parker wrote:Taking stock, what do know as facts?
 
That 

• LHO-1 was the photo in the original FWS-T story
  
• LHO-3 was pasted over the original photo and used by Armstrong and/or his supporters to bolster his theory
  

That's about all we can say with certainty.

What are further likely facts?

That 

• LHO-3 originated with Jack White
  

What are possible facts

That

• LHO-1 is Robert not Lee
  
• Robert is the source of LHO-1 and LHO-4
  
• One or more of Stan's collection on top of LHO-3, has been altered
  

What we still don't know

• Why LHO-3 was made
  

That's as far as I can wrap my head around it. If anyone has any additions/changes/disputes or queries, jump right in.

Under possible, it would also follow that the original of the body shot in LHO-3 came from Robert (since it's likely from Atsugi NAS as LHO-4 is).

Somehow I expect we might hear some cussing from Liverpool on the subject of "What we still don't know" regarding this whole fucked-up mess, so I'm gettin outta the way. Bon voyage

Under possible, it would also follow that the original of the body shot in LHO-3 came from Robert (since it's likely from Atsugi NAS as LHO-4 is).

Okay. I'll look at working that in.

Somehow I expect we might hear some cussing from Liverpool on the subject of "What we still don't know" regarding this whole fucked-up mess, so I'm gettin outta the way. Bon voyage

Dan, if that long-haired git from Liverpool starts cursing, just use your fucking moderator powers. 

Out of curiosity, has anything from this thread been discussed on the H&L fb page?

Alan Dixon wrote:Out of curiosity, has anything from this thread been discussed on the H&L fb page?

Can't tell you, Alan. They kicked me out and immediately closed the group from public view.

I have however just posted the most basic part of it to another fb group where some of the H & L group are also members. 
  https://www.facebook.com/groups/322749987858423/

ahhh, bless them. They've started to circle the wagons.